Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DOVER HARBOUR [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Dover Harbour Board to construct new works and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to enable the Admiralty and the Minister of Transport to reimburse to the Dover Harbour Board all or part of the expenses reasonably incurred by the said Board in the exercise by the said Board of powers in relation to certain vessels sunk stranded or abandoned in Dover Harbour.

Resolution agreed to.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROLLEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

PETITION (MINISTERS)

Sir Waldron Smithers: On 8th May I had the honour to present a Petition to this House signed by about 18,000 loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. At the time I said that more signatures were coming in. Since then about 2,500 more signatures have come in. I need not read the Petition over again, except to say, as I said before, for the words are included in the Petition:
.. in view of their past records the continuance in office of the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence who have in the past expressed their sympathy with Communist aims, is conducive to the increase of Communist and Fascist infiltration and activities in Britain and the consequent deterioration of Britain's credit and prestige upon which the recovery of Britain depends.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that this honourable House do present an Humble

Address to His Majesty praying him to remove these Ministers from His Majesty's presence and Councils for ever.
I beg to present these additional signatures to the Petition.

Mr. Kirkwood: There are not many cheers for that.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Trinidad (Hookworm)

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has studied the report of the Trinidad Commissioner for Labour, 1947–48, which draws attention to the serious effects of hookworm and which reveals that 90 per cent. of the inhabitants of sugar cane areas in the Colony suffer from this disease; and what action he is taking to improve this situation.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cook): Yes, Sir. Official surveys in those areas of Trinidad where sugar cane is principally grown did not confirm the figure of 90 per cent.; the incidence of the disease as thus ascertained varied between 75 per cent. and 30 per cent. The Trinidad Government established hookworm control units in three counties which include the sugar cane areas, in 1947, and in the two following years 21,711 and 21,668 persons were treated for hookworm. Propaganda against the disease includes the publication of pamphlets dealing with it and health talks to schools and communities. Clinic facilities for its treatment have been increased on some estates, and on the larger ones both housing facilities and latrine sanitation are continually being improved.

Mr. Smithers: In view of the debilitating nature of this disease and the alarming figures which the hon. Gentleman's reply discloses, will he give an undertaking that this matter will enjoy the highest priority as an objective for the Government?

Mr. Cook: We are very much concerned about the figures, and they are constantly being watched.

Mr. Awbery: Do industrial workers receive any workmen's compensation of any kind?

Mr. Cook: I require notice of that question.

Sir William Darling: Does vaccine treatment still exist, and is it extensively applied?

Mr. Cook: We are prepared to follow any method which will give results. This is a question of sanitation mainly.

Dominica (Food Shortage)

Mr. P. Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the shortage of foodstuffs in Dominica; whether he has studied the petition recently presented to the Administrator by housewives which deals with this matter; and what steps are being taken to ensure an adequate diet for the people of the island.

Mr. Cook: I am aware of the shortage and the petition. The first attempts to obtain additional foodstuffs from neighbouring islands were unsuccessful, but extra flour is now being imported and more rice is being sought from British Guiana. As regards the future, a landowner has agreed to plant ground provisions on a large scale, and it is intended to start a prison farm near the capital.

Mr. Smithers: Does the Under-Secretary recall that in reply to a question of mine recently in this House the Secretary of State gave a reassuring answer about the supply of flour, and is he aware that I have in my hand a letter stating that the supply was most unsatisfactory two days after that occasion? Can the hon. Gentleman give us some real assurance that we may have confidence in his answer today?

Mr. Cook: Yes, of course.

St. Lucia

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original estimate of the cost of the new bonding warehouse at Castries, St. Lucia; and what the actual cost is likely to be.

Mr. Cook: The original estimate for the bonded warehouse at Castries was £21,500. This included two storage sheds at an estimated cost of £9,500. Only the

two sheds have been built so far. They have cost about £13,000. This is due to a 12½ per cent. increase in their size and a 10 per cent. increase in building costs.

Mr. Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me where the extra money is to come from to pay for this additional cost?

Mr. Cook: Revised estimates for the remainder of the scheme, including passenger and baggage accommodation and work on the wharf, will be prepared shortly in connection with the second phase.

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the original estimate of the cost of the sewerage scheme being carried out at Castries, St. Lucia; and what the actual cost is likely to be.

Mr. Cook: The original estimate by the consulting engineers in 1949 was £110,000. About one-tenth of the work has been done and unexpected difficulty has been experienced with waterlogged ground. Revised estimates are under discussion. If the remainder of the ground is equally difficult the cost of the whole scheme, taking into account increases in the cost of materials since the original estimate was prepared, may possibly reach £190,000. If the ground is no more difficult than was thought when the first estimate was prepared the cost may be considerably less.

Mr. Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me again who will pay for the extra cost of this scheme?

Mr. Cook: I think the answer to that is obvious. It is under the control of the Colonial Development Corporation.

Antigua (Labour Relations)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the American company, Mill Reef Properties, Limited, operating in Antigua, has refused to recognise established trade union representatives speaking for its employees; and whether the Government of Antigua will take steps to inform all foreign companies that they are expected to conform to the normal standard of labour relations established in the island.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the


Colonies whether he is aware that Americans who have bought plantations in the island of Antigua are declining to recognise the unions to which their workers belong, or to sign any agreement with them, on the ground that these workers are coloured, although British employers, including those engaged in the sugar, cotton and rum industries and in commerce, recognise the unions and many of them have established works committees with union representation; and whether he will take steps to ensure that the American owners respect the local labour relations and customs and refrain from introducing racial segregation into the island.

Mr. Cook: Fewer than half the men employed by Mill Reef Properties are union members. The company is prepared to discuss complaints with representatives of the workers whether unionists or non-unionists in meetings arranged by the Leeward Island Labour Department and in arbitration proceedings. This is in accordance with normal labour relations procedure in Antigua. General allegations of racial prejudice and discriminatory practices have been made since the dispute began but have not been substantiated.

Mr. Brockway: In view of that answer and of the fact that President Truman has declared emphatically in favour of no racial discrimination in this matter, will the Government indicate that so far as labour relations in these islands are concerned it is their desire that there shall be no racial discrimination?

Mr. Cook: That is our policy.

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the legislative councils of the Leeward and Windward Islands have asked repeatedly since 1948 that a majority of their members shall be elected, and that a similar request has been accepted in the case of Jamaica, the Barbados and Trinidad, he is prepared to recommend the necessary amendment of the Constitutions and so enable these islands to participate in the proposed federation of the West Indies on an equal footing.

The Minister of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Dugdale): I am in communication

with the Governors of the Windward and Leeward Islands, and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Sugar Negotiations

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the growing concern in the West Indies at the delay in concluding the sugar negotiations with the West Indian delegation in London; and if he will make a statement on the subject.

Mr. J. Dugdale: I am not aware of any undue delay. Until the discussions are ended, both my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food would prefer not to make any statement.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to study the West Indian newspapers, which will give him some idea of the strength of feeling on the matter? Does he realise the serious political repercussions that might arise out of the failure of the Government to meet these demands?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another question. The original Question dealt with the delay, but we think it is more important that there should be a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations than that they should perhaps take a little longer.

Mr. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delays and reserves with which this matter has been treated will more than outweigh any benefits that might be gained by the adverse political and economic consequences in the Colonies? Does he realise that the Government are playing straight into the hands of hostile elements in the West Indies?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. I realise that the conditions in the West Indies are considerably better than they ever were under the Opposition before the war.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend take all necessary steps to resist this pressure on the authorities in this country to accept inferior trading conditions for the future supply of sugar?

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Ministry has seen this delegation when the Ministry of Food were unrepresented?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. They have seen them together with the Ministry of Food.

Commander Noble: Always?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Brockway: Can any indication be given when this statement will be made?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The negotiations are not completed, so it is impossible to give a definite date.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN (TUBERCULOSIS)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what number of beds are now available for the treatment of tuberculosis in Aden; and how many cases have been treated by streptomycin and with what result.

Mr. Cook: The number of beds now available for the treatment of tuberculosis in Aden is 110. Ninety-eight cases have completed treatment by streptomycin. The results obtained are that 40 of the cases are back at work, 26 are quiescent, 23 have improved, six are worse and three have died.

Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on the whole, the results of treatment of tuberculosis in both Aden and in Singapore have shown remarkable progress, and that the mortality rate is falling in those places? What steps is his Department taking to see that these facts are more widely known than they are now?

Mr. Cook: We are aware that improvements are taking place, and we hope that people are watching the progress as shown in the Colonial reports.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Social Welfare

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to encourage voluntary organisations to undertake social welfare work in the Colonies.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is conscious of the importance of encouraging voluntary organisations to undertake social welfare work in the Colonies and the attention of Colonial Governments has been called to the important role which they can play. Apart from missionary enterprise there is considerable other

voluntary activity in the West Indies, particularly Jamaica, in Hong Kong, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya, in Kenya and Sierra Leone and in Mauritius. Of course, throughout Africa the activities of the great missionary societies is well known, but here, as elsewhere, Governments are conscious of the value of voluntary effort and are doing what they can to foster it.

Cost of Living Indices

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Colonies possess and publish index numbers in respect of cost of living; why such an index number is not published in Nigeria; and on what bases wage and salary increases have been granted in Nigeria and other Colonies where index-numbers are not published.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Twenty-seven Colonial Governments publish index numbers relating to cost of living. The preparation of a reliable index in a Colony like Nigeria presents many difficult problems, particularly the wide variations in prices and expenditure patterns between one area and another. The war-time index was discontinued in 1946 as it was found to be unsatisfactory. Preliminary work on a new index is now in hand.
Cost of living indices are not, of course, the sole basis on which wage and salary increases are decided. The material put forward by trade unions and staff associations in support of their claims, together with the general economic conditions of a territory are the usual basis on which decisions are made.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that in other comparable areas these indices had been established, and does he not realise that at some time this method of computing the value of wages and the standard by which wages will be judged will certainly be reached, so why cannot it be done now?

Mr. Dugdale: I only said that it was rather difficult to establish one in Nigeria. We certainly have that in mind.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In the case of Colonies where indices of that kind are not available will the Minister tell us if proper statistics are kept and, if not, will he take steps to see that proper statistics


are kept which can be made the basis for such index figures? In colonies where such index figures are kept, would he tell us if the indices are computed on the same basis as that which we have in this country?

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will the Minister say whether the basis for the compilation of the indices of cost of living is to be broadened, as in some Colonies rent, for example, is not taken into account?

Mr. Dugdale: That is another Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my right hon. Friend say whether steps are now being taken to try to secure this very necessary basis, and if not will this be done in the near future?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The work of preparing the new indices is now in hand.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I have an answer to my question which was relative to the main question and was, I submit, a proper question to be answered.

Labour Advisers

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of his decision to send special trade union and labour advisers to Nigeria, whether these will be concerned with giving advice and assistance to all wage earners in Nigeria as well as miners; and whether he is considering the need of surveying conditions of labour in all the Colonies, in order where necessary to send out similar special advisers.

Mr J. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of by hon. Friend's Question is "Yes." As regards the second part, labour conditions in all the Colonies are kept constantly under review with the assistance of the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that these trade union officers are to visit all the various trade unions and take steps to try to form trade unions in other areas and among other sections of the workers where possible?

Mr. Dugdale: They are going to examine the whole trade union position throughout Nigeria.

Mr. Awbery: Would the Minister say whether the Government recognise trade unions and whether they negotiate with the representatives of the employees out there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In order to make this more clear, are we not right in thinking that the purpose of this special mission was not to set up trade unions while they are there, but, on their return, to report to the Government how best to get the Nigerian trade union movement properly established and under the right leadership?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, generally speaking, that is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA

Trade Unions

Mr. Gaminans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total membership of the trade unions in Malaya; and what percentage of the workers eligible for membership this represents.

Mr. Cook: The present membership of employees' trade unions in the Federation of Malaya is 42,695, representing 5 per cent. of workers eligible for membership. The corresponding figures for Singapore are 49,266 and 18.3 per cent.

Mr. Gammans: In view of the minute percentage in the Federation, in spite of very strenuous efforts on the part of the labour officers, does not this suggest that trade unionism in its present form in Malaya makes very little appeal to the workers?

Mr. Cook: On the contrary, it does appeal. The hon. Gentleman should realise that there are, to put it mildly, certain difficulties existing in Malaya, and unfortunate experiences which rather tended to drive people away from the trade unions as a result of the action of the Communist-dominated federation of trade unions which appropriated the funds for jungle warfare.

Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware that although a large number of employers in Malaya encourage trade unionism, there is quite a large number who discourage it, and who will do all they possibly can to prevent their employees from joining a trade union?

Mr. Cook: His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that the best way of building up good and solid relations in the Colonies is by the establishment of sound trade unions.

Mr. McCorquodale: Would the Under-Secretary deny or demand proof of the statement just made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), which casts a bad reflection on people who are not able to answer personally.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: To which unions do the labourers getting 4s. 9½d. a day belong; and do not these figures show a great need for increasing trade union membership in Singapore?

Mr. Cook: That is quite another question.

Mr. Nehru's Speech

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements he made for broadcasting the speech of Mr. Nehru, made at Singapore, advocating a policy of non-violence in Malaya.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Only one speech made by Mr. Nehru in Singapore was broadcast—that given at the dinner arranged in his honour by the Legislative Council. This speech in no way advocates a policy of non-violence.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the appeal made by Mr. Nehru in favour of non-violence was made to the bandits, and does he not think that this speech should be given the greatest possible publicity both to the bandits and to those fighting the bandits?

Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the Minister not think that in view of Pandit Nehru's deliberate cold-blooded attack on Hyderabad, that talk of non-violence is sheer humbug?

Mr. Wyatt: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the utmost possible use should be made of Mr. Nehru's very helpful speech as he said that we were roughly following the right sort of policy in Malaya?

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of order. May I ask to what extent Members of

this House are able to attack the Prime Minister of one of the Dominions and to make a very serious allegation against him?

Mr. Speaker: The question only refers to broadcasting. As to criticism of the head of a foreign State, of course one has to be very careful about that, and one should not do it.

Mr. Sorensen: May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the supplementary question of the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) which was rather out of taste, if not out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I think that Mr. Nehru is not the head of the State. He is the Prime Minister and, therefore, rather different from the head.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not out of taste to refer to the Prime Minister of a most important Dominion in that way?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Prison Camps

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated weekly cost of maintaining the prison camps in Malaya.

Mr. J. Dugdale: The estimated average weekly cost of maintaining the detention camps in the Federation of Malaya is £12,519.

Consultations

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what consultations he has had with the Sultans of Perak and Pahang during their visit to this country.

Mr. J. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend discussed the Malayan situation with the Sultans of Perak and Pahang before leaving on his recent visit, and he hopes to meet them again very shortly.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister of State aware of the unfortunate impression made by his own speech at the recent Malayan dinner in London when he made no comment on the presence of these Sultans and failed to pay adequate tribute to the bravery and loyalty of the Malays during the disturbances?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. At that dinner I did not make any particular comment


about the Malay people as such because the Malay people are defending their own country, as we know, and there was no reason to single out the Malay people especially. I did, in fact, make a particular comment about the Chinese and about the British, and naturally I would pay as high a tribute as anyone else to the Malays. So far as the Sultans of Perak and Pahang were concerned, they were present at the dinner and I had very cordial relations with them there.

Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister aware that whatever may have been his intentions, he did, in fact, create a most unfortunate impression?

Mr. Wyatt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he wishes to earn the applause of the Opposition he should spend his time at these dinners attacking Mr. Nehru?

Status

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his interview with those residents of Penang who wish that the island and province of Wellesley should revert to pre-war colonial status.

Mr. J. Dugdale: When my right hon. Friend visited Penang, he had an interview with the Secession Committee whom he was anxious to meet personally before replying to the petition they had submitted to his predecessor. My right hon. Friend is now considering the matter further.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an early reply, as it has been hanging about for far too long?

Mr. Dugdale: I am sure it will be as soon as he can make it.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the majority of the people in Malaya, including the Europeans, are in favour of federation and not separation, as suggested by the Question?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TERRITORIES (WOMEN TEACHERS)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many qualified African women teachers are employed in

schools of all types in each of the East and Central African territories; and what is the ratio between girl and boy students at the schools in question.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is asking the Governor concerned to supply the required information, and will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

Mr. Alport: When he has these figures, will the Under-Secretary satisfy himself that a proper balance is being maintained in the education of boys and girls in East and Central Africa, and that energetic steps are taken to advance the education of girls in particular?

Mr. Cook: Yes, Sir, but I should prefer to await the report.

Mr. Baldwin: Could the figures be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, instead of being given to only one hon. Member? I think this is of interest to most of us.

Mr. Cook: We are awaiting the information from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA (COTTON AND COFFEE FUNDS)

Mr. G. B. Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sums stand to the credit of the Uganda Cotton Price Assistance Fund and the Uganda Coffee Fund, respectively; and how it is proposed that these sums should be spent.

Mr. Cook: On 31st March, 1950, the Cotton Price Assistance Fund stood at £7,351,206, and the Coffee Fund at £2,037,106. The object of these funds is to protect growers as far as possible from fluctuations in world prices.

Mr. Craddock: Is it not a fact that these funds had a dual purpose, first the stabilisation of prices, and secondly that part of them be devoted to the welfare of the Africans themselves; and why is that not being done?

Mr. Cook: Payments have been made in the re-organisation of the industry, and we prefer that this re-organisation within the industry itself should be done by voluntary effort. The funds are being used for the benefit of the Africans themselves.

Mr. Brockway: In view of an earlier answer, that the Government would encourage the cotton growers themselves to establish co-operative organisations for ginning and exporting their cotton, will a portion of these funds be used for that purpose?

Mr. Cook: One ginnery has been established in Uganda for working under African management.

Mr. Craddock: The Under-Secretary did say at first that this fund was being used for price stabilisation, but in answer to my supplementary question he said that it was also being used for welfare. If that is so, how much of this fund of £7.3 million is being used for African welfare?

Mr. Cook: That is quite another question. I was dealing with the point that this preserved continuity of employment and guaranteed crops.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Convention Peoples' Party has for the third time in succession won all seats in the municipal and legislature elections in Accra and the Gold Coast; whether, in view of this indication of the support of people, he is now prepared to urge the Governor to release the leaders of this party from imprisonment or to extend to them treatment as political prisoners; and whether he is now prepared to accept in principle the right of the Gold Coast to democratic government on the basis of Dominion status, which is now claimed not only by the Convention People's Party but all representative sections of the people.

Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Convention Peoples' Party won all the contested seats in the Accra Town Council elections, the two town council by-elections at Cape Coast and the by-election at Cape Coast for a seat in the Legislative Council. As to the treatment of prisoners, I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply of 5th April.
A very full statement of His Majesty's Government's policy in regard to constitutional development in the Gold Coast

was contained in my right hon. Friend's predecessor's despatch of 14th October, 1949, which was published in Colonial Paper No. 250. My right hon. Friend is in full agreement with this and has nothing to add to it.

Mr. Brockway: Has the Under-Secretary received a document from the prisoners describing the appalling conditions under which they are suffering in the gaols there; and in regard to the second part of my Question, will he take some warning from what happened in India previous to the granting of independence there, and speed the efforts to secure self-government for the Gold Coast?

Mr. Cook: In the reply to which I have referred, the Secretary of State told my hon. Friend that he would bring to the Governor's notice any representation received. So far, none has been received, but a copy of the Question and answer has been sent to the Governor. The question of the conditions in the prisons is at present being considered.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend say under what powers these people are imprisoned; whether they have been charged with any offence, and whether they have been brought to trial?

Mr. Cook: Yes, all the prisoners referred to were convicted of breaches of various laws, and the convictions and sentences were upheld on appeal.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN COUNCIL, LIMASSOL

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the elected mayor and councillors of Limassol, Cyprus, are still in prison; how soon they are to be released; and if he will consider amending the provisions of the law regarding the naming of streets which the town council did not comply with.

Mr. J. Dugdale: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Since, as I informed my hon. Friend last week, the persons concerned have been committed for contempt. Their release is a matter for the Supreme Court of Cyprus and I can make no statement on it. The possibility raised in the last part of the Question is already being examined and I have sought the Governor's views, but it will be recognised that consideration of such a matter must be related to the general situation in Cyprus.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say if it is not the case that the street name to which objection is now taken was actually in force for four years from the end of the war, from 1945 to 1949; and why has it suddenly become so desperately important to change the name that the mayor and councillors can actually be sent to prison for not wanting to do so?

Mr. Dugdale: There was a considerable period during which the streets had no names at all which caused a great deal of inconvenience to everyone, including the postmen.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend answer my question? Is it not a fact that the street was named "28th October Street" for four years after the end of the war?

Mr. Dugdale: It was named for some time.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend think that to keep elected representatives of the people in prison on the grandiose charge of contempt of court and to base all that on so trivial a question as is involved here is against the whole spirit of our Colonial policy?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a criticism of the courts, and I am not prepared to comment on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA MARKETING BOARDS)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the present total of accumulated funds with the West African cocoa marketing boards.

Mr. J. Dugdale: For the latest available figures I would refer the hon. Member to the annual reports of the Gold Coast and Nigeria Cocoa Marketing Boards for the year 1948–49.

Major Lloyd: Assuming that these figures are extremely large, would the Minister tell the House what it is proposed to do with this enormous surplus?

Mr. Dugdale: That is a matter for the Board, but I would point out that had the Board made a loss, we would, no doubt, have been criticised, and therefore the fact that there is this surplus cannot be open equally to criticism?

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Would the Minister say what the figure is today? The figure to which he referred did not take into account the very large quantities of cocoa sold since at steeply rising prices. Is it not a fact that the total available is nearly £70 million, and is not being used for the essential work of replacing the cocoa which has been very heavily attacked by disease?

Mr. Dugdale: It is used both for the development of the industry and also for the stabilisation of prices.

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, explain whether we can ask questions regarding detailed administration of these boards? I was given to understand that we could not ask more than a very general question about any of these boards. If that is so, how can the Minister be asked a series of questions about these boards?

Mr. Speaker: I did not quite gather what was the point of order which the hon. Member was asking.

Mr. Sorensen: I want to know to what extent we can ask detailed questions regarding these various boards. This is one, and the Overseas Marketing Board is another. To what extent can we ask a series of questions about these boards?

Mr. Speaker: As I do not quite understand the point of the question, I should like to have notice of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEPTION ISLAND

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Deception Island is at present under British or Argentine occupation.

Mr. J. Dugdale: There are at present both British and Argentine parties established on Deception Island. The British post, which operates a meteorological station, has been continuously occupied since 1943. The Argentine post was set up in 1947 and has remained there despite protests delivered both through diplomatic channels and locally.

Mr. Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure the immediate withdrawal of the Argentinians from British territory?

Mr. Dugdale: The Government have made it clear that they will accept the


judgment of the International Court of Justice on the question of the title to Deception Island.

Mr. Braine: Does that mean there is doubt in the mind of the Government as to whether the Falkland Island Dependancies are a British possession or not?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. The point is that we, in company with many other nations, agree to abide by the decisions of the International Court of Justice, and we are willing that it should be submitted to the court. I would add that these questions are rapidly getting into Foreign Office territory and generally speaking, are matters for the Foreign Office.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not a fact that the Argentine Government are not bound to accept litigation in the International Court of Justice? Therefore, does not the whole thing fall to the ground?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

H.M.S. Breda (Wreck)

Major McCallum: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements have been made to remove the wreck of the yacht H.M.S. Breda which was in collision during the war outside Campbeltown, and was beached on the south shore of Campbeltown Loch.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): So far as I am aware, none, Sir. The wreck lies in waters under the jurisdiction of the Campbeltown Corporation. It is not a danger to navigation, and the expenditure of public funds on its removal would not be justified.

Major McCallum: Is the Minister aware that the collision took place as a result of naval operations and that the wreck is lying there? Have not the Navy got some responsibility to remove it?

Mr. Callaghan: There is a well established practice under which both private individuals and the Crown can abandon wrecks, and I understand that the normal practice has been followed in this case.

Ships' Libraries

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why "Winter Song," by James Hanley, has been ban-

ned from ships' recreational libraries in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Callaghan: This book has not been banned. It was not bought because of its price.

Mr. Wyatt: In view of the fact that the present selector of books for ships' libraries is the Director of Victualling, would it not be better to get some other officer to buy books for their quality rather than for their weight?

Mr. Callaghan: Literature is food for thought, and the Director of Victualling is perhaps not altogether inappropriate. I am not sure, in view of the state of the modern novel, that it is not a bad idea to buy books by the ounce.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this book, "Winter Song," was written by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Captain Ryder: Is it not true that the Director of Education has something to say in these matters?

Mr. Callaghan: Instructor lieutenants run the libraries in ships, but the purchase is carried out by the Director of Victualling for convenience.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Could not a copy of this book be put in the Library so that Members can draw their own conclusions as to its suitability for the Navy?

Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. and gallant Member will accept my judgment, I do not think he will find it as interesting as all that.

Ship Repairing

Mr. Oakshott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now say when he expects to receive the report of the committee investigating ship-repairing facilities on Mersey-side; and whether this report when available will be published.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): In reply to the first part of his question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) on 22nd May; the answer to the second part of the Question is that it is the intention to publish the report.

Mr. Oakshott: Is the Civil Lord aware that although the present level of employment is healthy and high, there is uneasiness as to the future position, which has not been dispelled by a recent hint about rising unemployment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that has much to do with the publication of this report. We have just set up a working party to go into the situation of the Merseyside, and when their report is presented it will be considered in the light of the other responsibilities in the country.

Mr. Collick: Pending receipt of the Committee's report, will the Parliamentary Secretary do everything in his power to see that the ship-repairing facilities at Birkenhead are fully utilised?

Mr. Edwards: We have no power to see that they are fully utilised, as they come under the control of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Mr. Oakshott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any ship repair work on commercially owned vessels, similar to that referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on Naval Dockyard Accounts, is still being undertaken in naval dockyards.

Mr. W. Edwards: No, Sir.

Fishery Control, Northern Ireland

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that fishing grounds off the coast of Northern Ireland are adequately patrolled by suitable naval fishery protection craft.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.

Sir R. Ross: In view of the importance of this control service in advising trawlers of the rules regarding fishing and protecting them from attack, can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many visits there have been to Northern Ireland waters in the last few months?

Mr. Callaghan: On an average, about one a month.

Professor Savory: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise the grave anxiety and concern caused by the attack

on the "Loch Esk" by Eire fishermen; that the skipper was very seriously wounded, and that no less than three bullets were found in the boat, while these Eire fishermen have complete freedom of access to Northern Ireland waters?

Mr. Callaghan: That is a question for the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Hospital Accommodation, Londonderry

Sir R. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will give an assurance that satisfactory hospital accommodation exists for ranks and ratings serving in ships and naval establishments in the neighbourhood of Londonderry.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. Two new wards were recently opened and the accommodation should be adequate for all normal needs.

Sir R. Ross: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that although quite adequate for one establishment, it is not worthy of the very large number of establishments and ships which are in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Callaghan: There will be overcrowding from time to time when the Fleet is in, but I am told that the average number of patients is approximately 30 and that there is accommodation for 60.

Sir R. Ross: Can he say what the maximum number has been recently.

Mr. Callaghan: Less than 60.

Dismissed Worker, Rosyth

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the man dismissed some months ago from the Rosyth dockyard for his political views has yet been found alternative employment; and, if so, what is the nature of such employment.

Mr. W. Edwards: This man was recently offered alternative employment outside the yard. It has, however, proved unsuitable and endeavours are now being made to find him work with another Government Department.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that this case has been pending since


about the middle of March, and since that time he has been for the bulk of the period on paid leave? Can the Minister tell us how long this paid leave is going to be given to these displaced Communists?

Mr. Edwards: I am quite aware that the gentleman concerned has been on paid leave for some time. By that we are carrying out the procedure which has been laid down in cases such as this, which is to endeavour to obtain alternative employment for such people. If we cannot find it for this man, he will have to be discharged.

Earl Winterton: What sense does it make to dismiss a man because he is a Communist and find him employment in another Government office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what is going on in the world at the present time?

Mr. Edwards: There is nothing new in this. It was stated quite clearly to the House last year that if we found persons who held Communist views employed in positions which gave them access to work of a secret nature, we were going to try to find them work elsewhere.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of this answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Recruiting Service

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached on the pay and conditions of the Royal Navy Recruiting Service.

Mr. Callaghan: I regret that I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on 14th December last.

Commander Noble: Is the Minister aware that this sort of answer was given by his predecessor to me on 19th January last year, and that the men in this Service have no confidence that any changes which will be made will be retrospective?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot say when the decision will be reached, because the whole question has to be considered in regard to the Government's policy on the level of incomes generally.

Long Service Gratuity

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will increase the gratuity of £20 payable on the award of the Royal Navy Long Service and Good Conduct Medal having regard to the decrease in purchasing power since the amount of the gratuity was fixed at this sum.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. The gratuity for long service and good conduct is a traditional payment not related in any way to the cost of living.

Mr. Stevens: Does the Minister not think that if £20 was considered a reasonable award for long service and good conduct many years ago, such service and good conduct is at least equally valuable today, and, therefore, worthy of at least equal purchasing power?

Mr. Callaghan: I tried to make it clear in my answer that this is not to be regarded as a payment which is related to the cost of living, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to base himself on that, it was so fixed in 1920 during that short lived boom after the last war, when costs and prices were very high indeed.

Housing Allowance, Singapore

Mr. Awbery: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the application for housing allowance was received by his Department in Singapore from the civil staff; what negotiations have taken place on the subject between the local staff unions and his Department; and what was the outcome.

Mr. W. Edwards: A claim for the payment of housing allowance was received and considered in 1948. It was rejected, because the Admiralty does not accept any obligation to house its employees, and there was no evidence that similar allowances were paid by local employers in general. The union has continued since then to press the claim locally; but no reason has been seen to alter the view formed in 1948. The question is now being reconsidered in the light of a recently published report of the Singapore Government's Cost of Living Allowance Committee.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that there has been over 12 months delay in dealing with these claims by three Gov-


ernment Departments; that the Secretary of State, in a reply to me yesterday, said that he has now decided that he would make these negotiations a matter of urgency; and will the Admiralty adopt the same policy as the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Edwards: These negotiations very often do take some time, but I would ask the hon. Member to understand that very often when a reply is given to them it is a negative one and most unsatisfactory.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the hon. Gentleman say if the allowance is subject to Income Tax, and if it is a compensatory allowance granted on similar lines to those of the Fire Service?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have to put that question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that a protest demonstration went to the three Ministers concerned while the Ministers were in Singapore?

Mr. Edwards: No, that is news to me.

Dockyard Orders (Quotations)

Mr. Braine: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the Director of Dockyards, in order to secure orders, was authorised to quote fixed prices at 15 per cent. below estimated costs; and whether he is aware that this practice has involved the taxpayer in heavy financial loss, and competes unfairly with private ship repairers.

Mr. W. Edwards: The Director of Dockyards was authorised to quote fixed prices for commercial work at not more than 15 per cent. below estimated cost when in his opinion the estimate was so high that it would result in the loss of an order which it was specially desired to secure for the purpose of contributing to the maintenance in full employment of the skilled tradesmen who were essential to the Naval Service.
The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir." The reduction not exceeding 15 per cent. which was applied only in a few cases, has not of itself involved heavy financial loss, and at the time the dockyards were seeking commercial repayment work, all private ship

repair yards were exceedingly busy, so that no question of unfair competition arose.

Mr. Braine: While accepting the Minister's explanation of the motive lying behind this action, may I ask is it not a fact that representations were made to the Treasury two years ago that very heavy financial loss would be incurred to the taxpayer, and in the light of that experience, can the Minister give the House an assurance that a practice of this kind is not likely to be repeated?

Mr. Edwards: While the practice was accepted by the Treasury, at the time we introduced it, the main reason for it, was in order that we could continue the employment of as many dockyard workers as possible soon after the war, because of the valuable services they gave us during the war.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether any such contracts are in operation at the moment?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir.

Brigadier Clarke: I hope the Minister appreciates that full employment may well pay dividends in the long run.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the work that has been done under ship repairing schemes in the dockyard has been of a great social service; and that work has been done which could not have been done by outside commercial firms at the time that these schemes were undertaken?

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the hours from 9.30 p.m. and 9 a.m. are slack hours in the long distance telephone calls to Scotland; and if he will extend the cheap rate for long distance calls to Scotland, from 6.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. as at present to 6.30 p.m. to 9 a.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): At the moment I cannot add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch) on the 14th June.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister give any hope that such a progressive move will be made in the near future?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I hope the announcement that I shall make before the Recess will go some way to meet the point of the Question of my hon. and learned Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (GRATUITY)

Mr. Eccles: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will amend the existing regulations governing extended service schemes so as to provide that in the case of the death of an airman, sailor or soldier, whilst serving on the Regular portion of an extended service engagement, a proportionate part of the gratuity which would have been due to him on the normal expiration of his service may be paid to his heirs.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): No, Sir. The regulation to which the hon. Member refers derives from the fact that the gratuities which are payable at the end of extended or short service engagements are intended primarily for resettlement. It is of long standing and is well understood by the men concerned.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that there is some feeling over this matter, and will he not give further consideration to it?

Mr. Shinwell: I have not heard of any feeling over the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE SCHEME (REVIEW)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence whether he has now completed his review of the National Service Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Shinwell: The practical working of the National Service Act is constantly under review to ensure that it meets the needs of the Services as efficiently as possible.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he is considering a system whereby men with National Service liability are allowed to volunteer for a period other than 18

months, with altered obligations, very much in the way which already applies to the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Shinwell: The idea has been projected, but there is no settlement on these matters as yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Parcels

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now remove all restrictions on the receipt of food parcels from any country in the sterling area.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): I am keeping these arrangements under review to ensure that restrictions remain in force only as long as they are necessary, but I cannot lift them at present.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister say what reasons exist for these restrictions other than the theory that because everybody cannot have something, nobody should have it?

Mr. Webb: That is not quite the theory. We have got a balance of payments even in the sterling area, but the real reason at the moment is to prevent a few individuals with plenty of money and good contacts overseas, getting food that the ordinary people in this country cannot get.

Butter

Mr. De la Bere: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the large increases in supplies of butter now available, he will consider de-rationing it forthwith.

Mr. Webb: No, Sir. There is certainly not enough for me to do this yet.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that I am not accustomed to taking "No" for an answer? Is he further aware that there is now enough butter for everybody and that there is no longer any justification for rationing? Is it not a fact also that the Minister knows it to be the case, although he does not like it, and that he cannot find a suitable answer?

Mr. Webb: I can think of many suitable answers but I cannot give any of them at the present time.

Flour Imports

Mr. Hard: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the quantities of flour which the United Kingdom has contracted for and purchased from Canada and Australia this year with the comparable quantities purchased in 1938; and if he will give an estimate of the amount of animal feedingstuffs lost by importing flour rather than wheat.

Mr. Webb: The best comparison is between imports of Canadian and Australian flour into the United Kingdom in 1938, which amounted to 329,000 tons, and imports in the latest period of 12 months for which official figures are available—June, 1949, to May, 1950—which amounted to 442,000 tons. If these quantities of flour had been milled in the United Kingdom at the extraction rates prevailing in the two periods, the amount of wheat offals which would have been produced in the process would have been about 128,000 tons in 1938 and about 78,000 tons in the later period.

Mr. Hurd: In future negotiations with Canada and Australia will the Minister always remember the desirability of buying wheat rather than flour so that our pig and poultry keepers may have some decent quality rations?

Mr. Webb: We have to bear that in mind, but at the same time we have to take into account other people's desires in the way of milling flour.

Apples (British Columbian Gift)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to state what was the total outlay by his Department for transport and distribution charges on the gift of apples from British Columbia; what this represented per pound of those sold; what prices were charged to wholesalers and retailers; what price was paid by the public; and how much profit was made on the transaction by his Department.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how he disposed of 1,000,000 bushels of British Columbian apples which were recently given to this country by Canada.

Mr. Webb: It proved possible to arrange to distribute 50,000 boxes free

to school children, and the rest had necessarily to be disposed of to the public through normal trade channels at prevailing prices. The British Columbia growers who made this generous gift to us knew that we were doing this and understood that no other course was possible. So far as can at present be ascertained, transport and distribution charges, including Ministry overheads, amounted to about £700,000, or approximately 3¾d. per lb. of apples sold. The average price realised on sales to wholesalers was 6½d. per lb. Sales by wholesalers to retailers and by retailers to the public were subject to price control, with maximum retail prices varying from 8½d. to 10½d. per lb., but some sales may have been made at prices below these. The profit on the transaction is expected to be about £500,000.

Major Lloyd: In view of that information, for which I thank the Minister, may I ask whether it is not a great pity that those most generous donors from Canada were not aware when they gave these apples that this was the kind of thing which would result from their gift?

Mr. Webb: I think they were aware. I discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of British Columbia and he fully agreed with the course that we were taking. It has resulted in a profit and we are now considering what is the best way of dealing with that profit.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister write frankly and fully to the Minister of Agriculture of Canada who lately, in the Canadian House of Commons, expressed the misgivings of Canada as to how we are dealing with this gift?

Commander Noble: Could not the profit be given to the Winnipeg Flood Fund?

Sugar

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Food what is the estimated normal requirement of sugar for Great Britain; what proportion of this can be obtained at home; and to what extent the balance could be obtained from non-dollar Empire sources.

Mr. Webb: We estimate that about 2,550,000 tons of sugar a year would be needed to meet the normal demand, and that of this quantity an average of about 500,000 tons should be available from home sources. We hope eventually to


be able to get nearly 90 per cent. of the balance from the Commonwealth under long-term agreements, but it will be several years before Commonwealth producers can achieve the considerable expansion needed to reach this figure.

Mr. Gammans: Were the Commonwealth prepared to meet some of the balance from Commonwealth sources after 1952? If so, why has the right hon. Gentleman turned down the offer on the part of the West Indies.

Mr. Webb: There is not actually any offer. An arrangement was negotiated last year between the Dominions and the Colonies to reach this sort of target. We are now engaged in negotiations with the West Indies as to their share of the target, but I would rather not make any statement.

Mr. Gammans: May we get the facts aright? Were the West Indies prepared to offer His Majesty's Government 85,000 tons of additional sugar, which His Majesty's Government have hitherto refused to accept?

Mr. Webb: I wish I had time to give the whole of the figures, but really that is quite wrong. The facts are these. We have undertaken to guarantee prices for 640,000 tons from 1953 for eight years onwards, and the rest up to 900,000 tons, at world prices plus preference. We feel that that is a reasonable arrangement.

Captain Crookshank: As this is all very confusing, may I ask whether the Minister can make it clear that he will take all Empire sugar—that is, everything—until 1952, from whatever source?

Mr. Webb: Yes, Sir. At the moment we are taking all, and we could take more. I would make it clear to the House that at this moment the West Indies are not providing the sugar that they had contracted to deliver. That is our difficulty. We are discussing sugar which is not even grown, from 1953 onwards.

Meat Supplies

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there is much resentment throughout Devon at the poor meat supplied to butchers, particularly beef, and that the average quality of meat available in Devon compares unfavourably with that obtainable in some other parts of the country, notably South Wales and the

Midlands; and what steps he proposes to improve the quality.

Mr. Webb: I am not aware of any grounds for this feeling in Devon. We do everything we can to see that all butchers get a fair share of the various qualities of meat, and I cannot agree that Devon butchers have been less favourably treated than butchers in South Wales and the Midlands.

Mr. Amory: Is the Minister aware that some of this meat has lately been so horrible that some of my constituents have had no alternative but to refuse their present scanty meat ration? Is he further aware that one of them, having laid his weekly ration before his family then offered it to his dog, by whom it was immediately rejected. Will the Minister come down to my constituency and see some of this stuff?

Mr. Perkins: asked the Minister of Food how far British beef is supplied to butchers' shops in the areas covered by the Stroud, Thornbury, Dursley, Gloucester and Nailsworth Rural District Councils; and if he will ensure that a reasonable proportion is made available in the future.

Mr. Webb: I have not the detailed figures for these particular places but the counties from which they draw supplies, Gloucester and Somerset, received about 21 per cent. of their allocations in home-killed beef during the four weeks ended 9th June, 1950. We try to see that all areas receive a reasonable proportion of the available home-killed beef.

Butcher, Mallaig (Licence)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Minister of Food why Mr. Burnett Stevenson, who has been a butcher for 20 years in Mallaig, was recently refused permission to open up a butcher's shop of his own there: and whether he will now see that Mr. Stevenson is given the necessary permit.

Mr. Webb: A licence was refused because it was considered that there were already enough butchers' shops in Mallaig to meet the needs of the public there. As I have already said, I do not want to keep these licensing restrictions any longer than is necessary, but as long as I have to do so I am satisfied that I cannot relax them exceptionally in this case.

Lord Douglas-Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman review this matter again? Is it not a fact that he stated recently that he was all in favour of the small man?

Mr. Webb: I have reviewed this case, but I must take account of overriding considerations. As long as the restriction is there I am bound to say that this case has not established any right to exceptional treatment.

Canned Ham

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food what restrictions are imposed upon the method of curing meat for sale as ration-free British canned ham.

Mr. Webb: None, Sir.

Mr. Higgs: If, owing to restrictions or present conditions, it is not possible to cure ham by the lengthy process which was needed in pre-war days, is not the commodity at present sold as British canned ham more appropriately described as "gammon"?

Mr. Webb: I did not hear all that supplementary question. The hon. Member had better discuss this matter outside with me.

Unsold Bacon

Mr. Higgs: asked the Minister of Food upon what conditions grocers art permitted to cook gammon remaining unsold at the end of a week.

Mr. Webb: Local food offices will authorise this only if there is a risk of the bacon going bad if kept till the following week.

Mr. Higgs: Does it not follow that there must be a reduction in their supply in the following week, and is the Minister satisfied that this arrangement can be carried out?

Mr. Webb: We recently altered the arrangements which, I think, are already working much better.

Chickens

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of chickens he has in stock; and how much profit or loss he has made on his poultry dealings since 1st January, 1950.

Mr. Webb: I do not think it would be either prudent or in the public interest to disclose our present stocks of chickens; and until we have cleared our stocks of poultry, I cannot say what our profit or loss will be.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister call for a special report on this transaction from the Comptroller and Auditor-General? May I ask him why he is able to gamble in the nation's food and money and not give an account? Will he restore this trade as soon as possible to the people who know the business?

Brigadier Medlicott: Will the Minister say whether this total includes the chickens belonging to the Labour Party which are now coming home to roost?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the rumour in the country today that there are very large numbers of chickens in store, and the uncertainty which is thus caused to the poultry producer, will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing some statement, if only to reassure the poultry producer?

Mr. Webb: If there is any need for such a statement—I do not think there is—I will make it.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (MICROPHONES)

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to ask you a Question, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. Would you be kind enough to explain the circumstances under which the microphone system was shut off yesterday during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: It was brought to my notice that it might be more convenient if the microphone were turned rather low during the speeches. I think hon. Members do not realise how this thing blares during the two Front Bench speeches. I take full responsibility for it. All I can say is that I heard a great deal better than usual, and I think that hon. Members in several places in the House did the same. I know there was inconvenience caused, and I am sorry that upstairs they could not hear, but I ask hon. Members to remember that we are going into another place, our own home, before very


long. Let us have the acoustics right when we go there. We never had microphones there, and perhaps it will not be necessary to have them, but let us not have something which makes a regular buzz and blare, and which sometimes really puzzles me very much.

Mr. Churchill: May I be permitted to add that, personally, I was a little concerned in raising the matter. On Monday, I thought that the microphone was much more powerful than it had been before, and my opinion was shared by a number of hon. Members with whom I talked. It causes a reverberation which makes it very difficult for the speaker to modulate his voice in accordance with the accidents of Debate. Therefore, I asked my right hon. Friend the Chief Opposition Whip whether there had been any change, and he told me that the microphone had been geared up over the weekend and made more strong. All I asked was whether there could be a return to the normal practice of last week, and the previous week before I spoke. But, by some error, it was turned off altogether. I hope I made myself heard to the House, and I make my apologies to the "gods" in the Gallery for any inconvenience they may have suffered.

Mr. G. Thomas: Whilst thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for your explanation, and the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) for the assurance that there was no plot to prevent his speech reaching the upper Gallery, which would be a grievous disappointment to this side of the House, may I take it, Mr. Speaker, that in future the system will operate as usual?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I hope so. I have been wondering in the last few weeks whether it might not be as well to make a few experiments, by putting it up or down occasionally, so that we can make certain that we get the right thing when we return to our home.

Mr. Eden: May I make one suggestion, Mr. Speaker, since you have said that. Those of us who were in the old House probably have the same feeling. I hope that under your guidance, Sir, the lesson of this will be that, when we start work again in our own home, we might also start on the basis so familiar to

all of us. If we know that we have no outside help, we can perhaps manage to handle the matter quite well. Therefore, I think that this experience will probably be an advantage and a lesson to us when we go back to our own home.

Mr. Reeves: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I think we would be very unwise to do that. May I suggest very seriously to the House that for a great time now, we have had the tremendous advantage of amplification which has enabled all of us to hear one another when we are talking, and that we may soon find that if we talk without the assistance of a microphone we shall go back to the conditions of the old days when we had to crane our necks and put our hands to our ears in order to hear what was being said.

LONDON MEAT DISTRIBUTION

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make the following statement to the House:
As the House will no doubt be aware, there is a stoppage of work amongst drivers employed in the transport of meat by road for London. Some 1,400 men are on strike. In view of the effect on the London meat supply, the Government are taking appropriate measures to secure the distribution of the maximum amount possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Eden: What exactly does that mean—"appropriate measures"?

Mr. Isaacs: "Appropriate measures" means the employment of troops and other persons to get the meat distributed.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the assurance for which I asked on a previous occasion, that this does not mean an interference with the training of troops? Is he aware that under this Government, troops have been employed in the docks on more occasions than under any previous Government?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that the question as to the extent of the interference with training is one which I, personally, could not answer, but no doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence could.

KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)

Mr. Churchill (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the Korean situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The battle situation remains confused, particularly round Seoul where there have been penetrations by North Korean forces. On the East coast, North Korean forces have now established contact with the beachhead south of Kangnung—20 miles south Of the 38th parallel.
A resolution by the United States delegate, recommending that
the members of the United Nations furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and so restore international peace and security to the area
was adopted by the Security Council by seven votes in favour and one vote against. The United Kingdom delegate voted for the resolution. The Yugoslav delegate voted against the resolution, whilst the Indian and Egyptian delegates did not participate in the vote as they had been unable to establish contact with their Governments; they added, however, that, if the majority of the Council desired to proceed to vote, they did not wish to stand in their way.
A Yugoslav draft resolution recommending a renewed call for cease-fire, mediation between the parties, and the invitation of the North Korean representative to the Council Chamber was rejected by one vote in favour (Yugoslavia) and seven votes against it. The Indian and Egyptian delegates likewise abstained on this resolution.
I should like to take this opportunity of correcting an error which I made in answer to a supplementary the day before yesterday when I referred to our representative in Korea as a "Consul." He is in fact a Minister.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister one question. He read out the terms of the Resolution. Would he tell us whether His Majesty's Government contemplate any action in support of the United Nations' Resolution?

The Prime Minister: That question is now under our close consideration.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement made by

General Marshall on 30th May that the Western European Powers realise that whoever won another war, their generation would lose; and is that being constantly borne in mind in this matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, we want to prevent another war.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that as a leading member of the United Nations, we are in honour bound to take a share in the burden in Korea which is at present being borne by the Americans alone?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member can take it as certain that this country will carry out its obligations to the United Nations. He is also aware, no doubt, that this country is already carrying a heavy burden in holding the line in South-East Asia.

Mr. Churchill: We certainly have confidence that His Majesty's Government will act up to their supreme international obligations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The Prime Minister said yesterday that the American Government was strengthening its defences in the Philippines. Can I ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the situation in Hong Kong and whether the Government will be strengthening the British air defences at Hong Kong?

The Prime Minister: That is another matter which will naturally be taken into consideration.

Mr. George Thomas: May I ask the Prime Minister who decides what military assistance is given by the respective Powers; whether it will be left to ourselves to decide what military assistance is given, or whether this is decided by the Security Council in making the appeal?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will see the Resolution. The Resolution which asks for their assistance does not lay down what assistance shall be given by any particular Power.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to this House and to the country that the efforts of the Government will be to localise this conflict to Korea?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly.

Later—

Mr. Henry Usborne: Under Standing Orders, Rule 9, I rise to propose to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance arising out of the situation in Korea, namely, the need for the immediate issue of instructions to our delegate at Lake Success to move, under Article 109, the reform of the United Nations so that it shall become a world government, able to make and enforce world laws.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance arising out of the situation in Korea, namely, the need for the immediate issue of instructions to our delegate at Lake Success to move, under Article 109, the reform of the United Nations so that it shall become a world government, able to make and enforce world laws.
I am afraid that that is a subject which does not come under Rule 9 at all. It is far too wide to be considered in order, and I cannot accept such a Motion.

Mr. Usborne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you allow me to submit to you considerations why this matter does come under Rule 9, and is both definite and urgent? While, on the one hand, it appears that we have asserted that we are supporting the legal decision of the world authority for collective action, at the same time, we appear to be supporting armed intervention which was initiated—

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is rising to a point of order. I think he is entitled to do so.

Mr. McAllister: My hon. Friend had risen to a point of order, and, I understand, was making a point of order to you when the noble Lord interrupted with a further point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is right. We can only have one point of order at a time, and the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) is now on a point of order.

Mr. Usborne: Thank you very much for your help in what is to me a very difficult and awkward subject to deal with briefly. We appear, on the one hand, to have asserted that we are supporting the legal action of the world authority for collective action—

Earl Winterton: This is not a point of order.

Mr. Usborne: It is a point of order. May I be allowed to finish it and show that it is? On the other hand, we are clearly supporting an armed intervention which was initiated in advance of the collective decision of the body which made the law and that demonstrates the absurdity of the position. Furthermore—

Major Guy Lloyd: Major Guy Lloyd rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: We cannot have a point of order when another point of order is being discussed.

Mr. Usborne: Furthermore, we are apparently implicitly condoning in respect of Formosa, the virtual occupation of a part of the territory of a nation whose sovereignty we have formally recognised.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order. The hon. Member is not entitled to put arguments which he would put if I allowed him to move the Motion. He can only point out where perhaps my Ruling may be mistaken.

Mr. Usborne: I am sorry if I appear to have gone beyond the rules. I was pointing out that the matter is urgent now and surely definite.

Mr. Speaker: I have to rule on it now. I rule it is not urgent now, and the hon. Member must point out where I am wrong and not discuss the subject he would like to discuss.

Mr. Eden: I did not know it was possible to argue these decisions, but, since the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) has definitely stated that the decision of a friendly Government, supported by His Majesty's Government, was taken in advance of the proceedings of the authority from whom they derived the necessary powers, I suggest that is a very serious suggestion and I ask the Attorney-General, or the Government, to confirm or deny it.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I do not know whether it is in order for me to respond to the question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. James Hudson: On that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I think we shall have this point of order settled now, because it is quite obvious, from what the hon. Member for Yardley has said, that this is a very complicated matter which is not a definite matter of urgent public importance. It may be of urgent public importance but it is so wide that by previous rulings of Speakers it does not come within Rule 9 at all. Therefore, I cannot accept it and it cannot be argued any further.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not out of order—I ask for information—to institute a Debate on rulings and decisions which you give from the Chair in respect of Motions for the Adjournment?

Mr. Speaker: Not quite out of order. I think an hon. Member is entitled to make submissions, in case by chance I have misunderstood the proposition, but to give reasons which would be applicable to the Debate, if I had allowed it, would be quite out of order.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: There cannot be a point of order.

The Attorney-General: May I have the opportunity of saying that His Majesty's Government entirely dissent from the view that the action of the United States Government was not both within the Charter and within their legal powers under international law.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might quote from a former ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel, which explains the matter completely. This is the reason for ruling it out:
I do not think it is contemplated that a question of very wide scope … could be the subject for discussion under Rule 9.
That, I am afraid, is my opinion. I must leave it to Rule 9.

SENTENCED SOLDIER, GERMANY

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the case of Private Linsell.
Private Linsell was tried by General Court Martial on a charge alleging that he murdered Robert William Reith, a German policeman, on the night of 31st March. He pleaded not guilty, was found guilty and was sentenced to death. The court added a recommendation to mercy on the ground that he did not receive the supervision in respect of his duties which he was entitled to receive from his superiors.
The decision whether or not to confirm the findings and sentence of the court was one for the Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine. After careful scrutiny of the court martial proceedings, and of a petition submitted by the accused, General Keightley concluded that a conviction for murder would be an injustice to the accused. He therefore refused confirmation, with the effect that Private Linsell has been released.
As hon. Members will be aware, a copy of the court martial proceedings is now available in the Library of the House: another copy has been made available to members of the Upper House and a third copy to Lobby correspondents. I have arranged for this in view of the unusual circumstances of the case, but I must point out that the effect of refusal of confirmation is to annul the whole trial, and hat the proceedings have no legal validity.
Nevertheless, in view of widespread misunderstandings as to the circumstances in which the fatal shots were fired, I would like to call attention to certain broad facts which appear to have emerged in court. I think that hon. Members will agree that an impression has arisen in the public mind that this is a case of a sentry who saw a suspicious character approaching his post, duly challenged, when his challenges were not obeyed, carried out his orders by opening fire, and yet was convicted of murder by a court martial for having done so.
It is most important, in the interests of the Army, that this completely erroneous impression should be removed. When they come to read the proceedings, hon.


Members will see that in fact the evidence adduced in court appears to show that Private Linsell had entered a café or cafés with the deceased and spent some time with him both there and in the cookhouse at the medical reception station. The deceased and another German policeman later appear to have created some kind of disturbance which Private Linsell went to investigate. Immediately before his death the deceased had entered a motor van and was about to leave the neighbourhood of the medical reception station which Private Linsell was guarding. Private Linsell got on the running board of the van and told it to return to the medical reception station. The evidence further shows that Private Linsell either fell or was pushed off or jumped off the van, when it reached the medical reception station. Private Linsell stated that he shouted after the van to stop it; when it did not do so, he fired five shots after it, killing the deceased.
I must warn the House that much of the evidence is conflicting as to the exact sequence of events, but I think that they will satisfy themselves, as the court was evidently satisfied, that there was no question of Private Linsell challenging someone who was approaching his post in a suspicious manner, failing to receive a response, and carrying out his orders by firing.
I turn to the question of the orders given to Private Linsell. Private Linsell was a member of an armed guard at the medical reception station. There is no doubt that this guard had been given inadequate instructions. The supervision of the guard also left much to be desired. These aspects of the case are being dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine.
I think, however, that hon. Members when they read the proceedings of the court martial will conclude that the court was satisfied that the fatal shots were not fired in obedience to any order which Private Linsell had received, and that in particular, the court appears to accept the contention of the prosecution that the regimental orders of the Black Watch, which instruct sentries to shoot to kill persons who are acting suspiciously, and who refuse to obey a second challege, could not cover the actions of Private Linsell.
Nevertheless, I have welcomed General Keightley's assurance that he is taking immediate steps to see that all sentries in his Command are given clear and definite orders and that these orders are appropriate to the circumstances of their post. The question of what security orders should be issued in any particular theatre is left to the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief who is in the best position to judge what action is necessary to meet any set of circumstances. I am therefore calling the attention of all Commanders-in-Chief to the importance of ensuring that all sentries have clear and appropriate orders.
Finally, I would like to refer once again to the allegations of unjustified delay in this case. Private Linsell was sentenced by the court on 25th May. On 10th June, 16 days later, it was announced by the Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine, that the sentence, if confirmed, would be commuted. Meanwhile the Commander-in-Chief postponed his final decision on confirmation, at the request of Private Linsell's legal adviser, until after a petition on Private Linsell's behalf could be prepared and forwarded to him. This petition reached the Commander-in-Chief on 19th June, and his decision not to confirm was announced on 22nd June.
Confirmation or otherwise of proceedings of military courts martial corresponds in some respects to the decision of an appeal court in civil proceedings, with the important differences that review by the confirming authority is automatic and does not depend upon the submission of an appeal, and that the proceedings of a court martial have no legal validity unless and until they are confirmed. Even allowing for the delay caused by awaiting the defendant's petition, the time from the sentence to final refusal of confirmation was 28 days. This does not compare unfavourably with similar periods under the civil appeal procedure. There was an additional factor, referred to above, that the total period for which the accused stood in peril of the death sentence was 16 days, considerably less than the comparable period of uncertainty pending the decision of an appeal court in similar civil cases.

Mr. Bellenger: As this appears to be the first occasion on which this House and the public have had access to the actual


proceedings and to some of the evidence, with consequent misconceptions in the public mind as to what actually happened in this case, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether access to the court was given to the Press in Germany when this trial took place, and whether it is the general procedure that, except in very rare cases, courts martial are open to the public Press?

Mr. Strachey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that question. Yes, the courts martial proceedings were fully open to the public as a whole.

Lieut.-Colonel Lockwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one reason for the non-confirmation of the death sentence in this case was that—and I quote from an official document—other aspects arose in the proceedings which might, in the view of the Commander-in-Chief, have influenced the court's decision and resulted in an injustice to the accused man? May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he knows what these particular aspects were, and whether, in view of their seriousness, he will tell the House exactly to what they refer? What are those other aspects?

Mr. Strachey: The confirmation is, of course, a matter in the sole discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, who has informed us that the two principal grounds and he was careful not to say the only grounds—of non-confirmation of the sentence were the grounds to which I have alluded and the fact that he did not consider that the orders to the sentry were satisfactory or clear, and that, in some respects, he thought that the proceedings and the constitution of the court martial might, in those circumstances, have led to an injustice in a capital sentence.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the confirming authority would have the same right as the Court of Criminal Appeal would have had in this country, in comparable cases, of substituting a verdict of manslaughter for a verdict of guilty; and whether it is clear that this case is not a contradiction of the old-established principle of English criminal law that one cannot justify a crime on the grounds of obedience to superior orders?

Mr. Strachey: In answer to the first question, it is not the case, under military

law, that the charge could have been varied to that of manslaughter by the confirming authority. The second question does not arise in this case, and I think my hon. Friend will agree, when he reads the proceedings, that the court was not called upon to adjudicate on the question whether the order, though carried out, had been illegal.

General Sir George Jeffreys: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will say whether, in fact, as the result of the proceedings of this court martial, it was disclosed that this sentry, very far from carrying out his duties properly, had quitted his post and gone into a place of refreshment, that he had fired not one shot but five shots, and had actually carried out his duty very badly indeed, whatever his orders might have been?

Mr. Strachey: I should not like to add to what I have said in my statement, because I feel that we should then be re-trying the case on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Blackburn: With reference to the Question which I asked my right hon. Friend yesterday, and which is not specifically related to the Linsell case, will the Secretary of State consider issuing an Army Council Instruction on the subject of orders to sentries, so that it may be made absolutely clear that only in exceptional circumstances are sentries to shoot to kill, and stating that in general they should shoot for the purpose of stopping people, but not for the purpose of killing them?

Mr. Strachey: I have examined the general orders to sentries of the British Army of the Rhine, and I must say that they seem to me to be satisfactory and sensible. On the other hand, General Keightley has set up a court of inquiry to examine these general Army Orders and their relation to regimental orders, such as those of the Black Watch. I think they ought to be left to Commanders-in-Chief in each theatre, because circumstances do vary, but I have called the attention of other Commanders-in-Chief—or rather I am doing so—to the importance of this matter.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the alleged statement of Linsell that, during his period of detention and when he was in


peril, he was confined in a room where glaring lights were maintained all the time, preventing him from getting any sleep?

Mr. Strachey: I have seen the statement, but I have no reason to suppose that it is either well-founded or ill-founded. I could not answer that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that all this indicates the need for early steps to be taken for the reform of the court-martial procedure, and can he say when the various recommendations now before him are to be put into effect?

Mr. Strachey: The House knows that we have had two committees of inquiry on this subject, under Mr. Justice Lewis and Mr. Justice Pilcher, and their reports are under consideration by the Government.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Can the Secretary of State for War tell the House whether the benefit of legal advice as to English criminal law is available to Commanders-in-Chief before they confirm sentences?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, of course.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that it would not have been possible to reduce the period of 16 days, not in respect of confirmation or otherwise of the verdict, but from the point of view of the non-execution of the

death sentence? Have the military commanders no powers similar to those which reside in the Home Secretary to mitigate a death sentence in cases where it appears obvious that it would not, in fact, be executed?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The Commander-in-Chief has such powers, and in fact, exercised them, but I should have been loath to exercise them in less than this period. He had to have the transcription of the full shorthand notes of the proceedings before him and study it very carefully, and I think my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would agree that 16 days is not necessarily too long a period in which to make so weighty a decision as this.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the question of the general principle, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is of the highest public importance that it should be realised that a soldier is under no obligation to obey a manifestly unlawful order, and that, on the contrary, it is his duty not to do so?

Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct, but I would only tell him that that particular issue did not arise in this case.

Earl Winterton: Is it not really very unsatisfactory that we should attempt to re-try this case in the House of Commons, and is it not time that we got on with the Business?

Orders of the Day — MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.5 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is a harmless, necessary creature with four legs and a rather abbreviated tail, as the House will see. It pretends to very little in the way of claws or teeth or to the glamour of a Finance Bill proper, nor will it, I trust, keep us awake so long. Its four legs are almost entirely unrelated to one another and that is one reason why we give the title, "miscellaneous" to this rather piebald animal.
Clause 1, the most important in the Bill, replaces Section 3 of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act, 1946, which gave power to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund to £250 million, but only to 31st December, 1950. The present Clause re-enacts the power to raise the necessary sums but reduces the maximum from £250 million to £125 million and continues the period for only two years, i.e., up to the end of 1952. In effect, therefore, the Government are proposing to set a maximum to the Civil Contingencies Fund for the next two years at one-half of the figure at which the maximum has stood since 1946. The purpose of the Civil Contingencies Fund is, as its name implies, to provide for foreseen contingencies, of which the most common example is the case of a Department which has to undertake some new service, or expansion of an existing service, before opportunity occurs for a Supplementary Estimate to be presented to Parliament.
It may perhaps be argued that a cut to one-half from the figure prevailing in the last four years is an excessive cut and that a long enough period has not yet elapsed, following the financial disturbances of the war and the post-war period for it to be possible to settle down to a figure that is so much smaller. We believe, however, that we are now moving nearer to a situation in which new or additional expenditure can, to a much greater extent, be covered in advance by Supplementary Estimates. On the other hand, of course it could be argued that

£125 million is much too large when compared with the £1,500,000 at which the maximum stood from 1921 until the last war. I think the House will agree, however, that the figure of £1,500,000 has very little relevance by way of comparison with today.
First of all, this Fund was increased to £120 million after the first war up to 1921. Secondly, today very large trading operations are undertaken by Government Departments and the flexibility which must be given to those Departments for raising working capital and so forth represents one of the main calls on the Fund in present conditions. We are not of course this afternoon debating the rights and wrongs of Government trading on this scale. For the purpose of this Debate, we must assume that as a fact, and as long as it is a fact the necessary financial provision must be made. For instance, the Ministry of Food have a total turnover in their trading operations of something like £1,500 million annually. It is therefore not surprising that when, for instance, the £100 million loan was made to Argentina under the Andes Agreement in 1948, a large call on the Civil Contingencies Fund had to be made. Indeed, I notice that the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley), when the Fund was discussed on the earlier Bill in this House in March, 1946, said that the use of the Fund for this purpose was quite legitimate.
Again, temporary advances have been made out of the Fund, as the House knows, to the Intra-European Payments Account to enable payments out of that account to be made in advance of payments in. As an essential part of the O.E.E.C. payments machinery, we have in the last two years made payments to certain European countries, members of O.E.E.C, before we received the equivalent payments from the United States Government. I think everyone agrees that this has been a useful piece of inter-European economic machinery, and the Civil Contingencies Fund has played its part in that.
Taking all these arguments into account, we came to the conclusion that £125 million is a reasonable total at which to strike the balance for the next two years. This will give us further time to determine what the more long-term figure should be.

Mr. Snow: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House when the accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund were last published?

Mr. Jay: They were last published in October. I will give the hon. Member the exact reference presently if he wishes.

Mr. Snow: Before this Debate began, I did inquire of the Vote Office when these accounts were last published, and I was assured that the last published accounts were on 8th March, 1949, in respect of the year 1947–48.

Mr. Jay: I have the Paper here, and the date is 27th October, 1949, and I think that is correct.

Mr. Snow: Can that information be given to hon. Members through the Vote Office?

Mr. Jay: So far as I know, the information is available to hon. Members.
Clause 2 gives the Treasury power to advance, on such terms as it determines, up to £15 million to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. The purpose of this Clause is to ensure that loans may, if necessary, be available to finance housing and other capital expenditure by Northern Ireland local authorities. At present, as hon. Members know, we make advances to local authorities in Great Britain through the Public Works Loans Board for these purposes and thus ensure to them the finance they need. Since Northern Ireland pays the same taxes as Great Britain, it is plainly fair on the principle of parity of treatment that, if Northern Ireland cannot herself finance the capital needs of her local authorities on suitable terms, we should, in the last resort, be able to come to her assistance. In that country as in this, it is in the national interest that housing costs should be kept to the lowest possible limit. I do not imagine hon. Members will dispute that.
Clause 3 gives statutory authority for the payment of the Exchequer grant in aid of police expenditure. At present the rate of Exchequer grant in aid of approved police expenditure is 50 per cent. in the normal case. The only existing statutory authority for the payment of this grant for expenditure in England and Wales at present is the annual Appropriation Acts. The Pupblic Accounts Committee has laid it down as a principle that where continuing functions involving

expenditure are exercised by a Government Department, the powers and duties should be exercised by a specific Statute; and indeed the Committee recommended in particular that these grants should be so regularised. We are thus by this Clause fully legitimising the relations between the Treasury and the Home Office.
Clause 4 formally winds up the Czechoslovakia Financial Claims Fund. This is not really an act of policy, but merely a recognition that this Fund has no money left in it, and has not in practice operated for nearly two years. The Fund was originally set up by the Czechoslovakia (Financial Claims and Refugees) Act, 1940, to assist British holders of certain Czech obligations which were naturally not then being met. The Fund started in 1940 with about £3,500,000, and was used, in accordance with the Act, throughout the war to meet obligations on Czech debts for the benefit of the creditors. After payments which fell due in June, 1948, the Fund was virtually exhausted and it is therefore now desirable formally to wind it up. I hope, therefore, that the House will approve this necessary, if not very exciting Measure as adding a few useful cogs to our financial machinery.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: The Financial Secretary told us that this Bill stood upon four legs, which is a very good number of legs, provided they are all sound. I have no complaint about legs 2, 3 and 4, but I should like to say a word about leg or Clause 1.
The Financial Secretary sought to explain to the House why it was necessary to continue the temporary increase of a very large amount in the Civil Contingencies Fund. I hope the House will recollect what is the purpose of the Civil Contingencies Fund. The hon. Gentleman referred to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Stanley) on the occation of the 1946 Bill, when there was a discussion on this subject, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I quoted a few words used by my right hon. Friend on that occasion. He explained that we were all familiar with the workings of the Civil Contingencies Fund in the old days and he said:
It was limited to £1,500,000 and gave Departments an opportunity for immediate


expenditure of money on a service which had not been covered by Estimate on the understanding, of course, that it would eventually be covered by a Supplementary Estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2267.]
My right hon. Friend illustrated the use that was made of the Fund by quoting the case of a hurricane in the West Indies, when it was desirable very quickly to make some contribution for which there was no provision in the Estimate. We all understand that, but I want the House to consider very carefully the position today.
The Treasury are very accomplished in the art of myosis. They introduce a Bill looking small and harmless, but if we examine it we find that it contains important things. There is no doubt that, in the interests of Parliament, we have to watch very carefully what the Executive are doing. I suggest that this is one of the occasions when we must examine it closely. Parliament has very largely lost control over the borrowing powers of the Executive, and it is essential that it should retain its control very closely over the spending powers of the Executive.
If I may go back into the past for a few moments, I would recall that in 1861 the whole of this matter was examined by the Public Accounts Committee. They made certain recommendations which have been accepted ever since. In fact, they were implemented in the following year by a Treasury minute and a capital sum of £120,000 was then placed at the disposal of the Civil Contingencies Fund. That worked satisfactorily until 1913, when an increase of that Fund was made to £300,000. No doubt in the course of years the business of Parliament had increased and rather a larger sum was thought to be desirable.
Then came the 1914–18 war. That was financed by Votes of Credit, just as was the last war. As long as Votes of Credit are continued, the Government do not need to bother with the Civil Contingencies Fund or anything of that kind. There are entrusted to the Executive wide powers which, in times of peace, this House would not be likely to entrust to them. After the 1914–18 war, the same sort of difficulties cropped up as those which arose after the last war. It was considered proper at that time to increase

the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund by a very large amount. It was increased in 1919 to £120 million.
That lasted until 1921, when the difficulties associated with the period of transition from the war-time financing under the Vote of Credit system to the peacetime financing under our old Estimates system, had been successfully passed. In 1921 the Fund was reduced to £1,500,000. In view of the great increase of the business of Parliament and the depreciation in the value of money, perhaps that was not out of relation to the old Fund of £300,000 which we had before the war.
I am sure that hon. Members appreciate that the Civil Contingencies Fund is a sort of petty cash at the disposal of the Executive. They can do what they like with it, and therefore it is most important that we should watch the amount which they have. No business worth talking about leaves too much money in the till for the use of those who have charge of the till.
In 1946 the same difficulty arose as that which had arisen in 1919, and a Bill was introduced providing for an increase in this Fund to £250 million. It was laid down in that Act, very properly, what that £250 million was for. The Act was to provide:
…funds for making advances in respect of urgent services in anticipation of the provision made or to be made by Parliament for those services becoming available…
That was one thing. Then it said:
or for making advances in anticipation of the realisation of receipts in connection with any service…
or:
for making temporary advances to any Government Department for the provision of any necessary working cash balances in connection with such services…
That is what the Act of 1946 provided. In 1949 there was an Act relating to this matter—the American Aid and European Payments (Financial Provisions) Act—which authorised the temporary financing of the Intra-European Payments Account, and brought these advances within the scope of the 1946 Act. The present Bill reduces the £250 million to £125 million. The Financial Secretary argued somewhat ingenuously that there were some who might think that that was too great a reduction, whereas there were others who might think that it was too small a reduc-


tion. I should like to make it clear now that we on this side of the House think that it is too small a reduction.
This Fund, though it is very necessary, gives to the Executive a great deal of power. It is only natural that Parliament should be cautious in extending the facilities offered by the Fund beyond what is reasonably necessary to meet unavoidable emergencies. I want to examine some of the uses to which this Fund has been put. I should like to illustrate my point by showing what happened in the case of the National Health Service Act. In March of this year, we were confronted with Supplementary Estimates by the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland amounting to some £98 million. It appeared from those Estimates that a sum of £54 million had been advanced from the Civil Contingencies Fund as far as England was concerned. and £6 million had been advanced for Scotland.
I suggest that that was not the kind of use for which the Fund was intended. If the Financial Secretary would study the speech made by his predecessor in introducing the last Bill, I do not think that he would suggest that there was any contemplation of such a use for the Fund at that time, nor indeed do I think that there was. I think it will be helpful to refer again to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. He was referring to the possibility—which, in fact, happened—of a great over-expenditure by a Department during the year. He said:
But if a Department has estimated wrongly at the beginning of the year, the fact becomes apparent inside that Department long before the expenditure authorised by Parliament has' been exhausted, and it is perfectly simple for it then to come back to the House with Supplementary Estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st March, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 2268.]
What happened in the case of the Health Service? It must have been clear to the Departments concerned and to the Treasury, who watch these matters closely from week to week, that the amount voted by Parliament for the Health Service was being greatly overspent. That must have been clearly apparent to the authorities at any rate by September or October of last year But what happened? No Supplementary Estimate was asked for at that time, and money was borrowed, as we subsequently

found out, from the Civil Contingencies Fund, to meet this over-spending by two of the Departments of State.
I ask the Financial Secretary why it was that a Supplementary Estimate was not introduced into this House before Christmas. I want to know. What happened was that no Supplementary Estimate was introduced until March, after the General Election. Therefore, it was not revealed to the public what an enormous over-expenditure there had been on this Service until after the General Election. The Fund should not have been used for a purpose of that sort. That illustrates the danger of losing Parliamentary control over the Executive by allowing such a large Civil Contingencies Fund to be at their disposal.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to put most seriously to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should reduce this temporary increase of the Fund to a more reasonable figure. I do not think that anything which the hon. Gentleman said convinced me that there was any need for a fund anything like as large as £125 million. I admit that there was an exceptionally large payment made at the time of the Andes Agreement, but that was exceptional and there is little likelihood of its happening again. In any case, Supplementary Estimates can, and should, be asked for.
We do not, of course, intend to oppose the Second Reading, because three out of the four Clauses of the Bill are, as far as I know, quite inexceptionable. In fact, one of them—Clause 3—I am very glad to see in the Bill, because it is a matter which has been urged upon the Government by the Public Accounts Committee on more than one occasion and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his part in seeing that it is put into the Bill. Clause 1, however, needs amendment. On the Committee stage we shall press for a very substantial reduction in the figure of £125 million, and I hope very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will see fit to concede it.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Benson: The speech of the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) was most interesting as an historical survey of the growth of the Civil Contingencies Fund from its very modest beginning with a capital of


£125,000. The growth of this Fund was a history of the growth of Parliamentary activity. We find, in our financial procedure in this House, the same relics of bygone days and necessities as we find in the ritualistic procedure of the House, and I think that much of the talk that we hear from time to time about the control of the Executive is really archaic language, and, to some extent, archaic language based upon archaic thought.
Financial control of the Executive 150 years and more ago was not so much control for a financial purpose as for a political purpose. Parliament carefully kept the Government of the day extremely short of funds in order that the Government would have to call Parliament together. It was not the financial safeguard that led to the starving of the Government of the day of those funds. It was rather the desire of the House of Commons to keep political control of the Government.

Mr. Nigel Birch: That is going back to the 17th century.

Mr. Benson: Exactly, but I cannot help it if hon. Gentlemen have not moved from the 17th century. I am merely pointing out the historical background.
During the 19th' century undoubtedly the Commons tended to keep the Government short of funds and grudgingly gave taxation because, financially, the Commons were always very strongly on the side of economy. Nowadays, however—and I am speaking from 20 years' knowledge of this House—I should say that it is the Government that have to enforce economy on the House of Commons, and that there is far more resistance on the part of the Government to attempts to spend money by Private Members than there is resistance of the House against expenditure by the Government. Our whole attitude to financial control and to the use of finance has undergone a very great revolution in the past 30 or 40 years, let alone the past century. When one looks, for instance, at the loans which have been made under the Civil Contingencies Fund and paid back, one finds that they range over a vast number of extremely important activities.
I am not saying that £125 million is the correct figure. The Government might

be able to make do with £100 million—I do not know; but looking at the figures of the loans which have been made out of the Civil Contingencies Fund most of them temporary loans, looking at their size and variety, it is quite obvious that the capital sum of the Fund must be a very considerable amount. To limit it unduly on the grounds, not merely of Gladstonian, but pre-Gladstonian, financial principles, would be really to hamper very important activities of the Government, activities which the House of Commons would desire to have carried out.
The idea that we have to control the Executive in its expenditure by keeping it short of money might have been valid in the 17th or 18th century, and possibly at the beginning of the 19th, century, but we have adequate control and accounting now. The Government cannot spend money and get away with it if they have spent it contrary to the will of the House of Commons. The mere fact that the Government have a large fund for which they are compelled to account to this House does not really lead to any relaxation of the control of the House on expenditure. If we want to control Government expenditure, there are far more effective methods of doing it than by limiting the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund.

4.37 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am concerned with Clause 2 of the Bill, and I should like to refer especially to subsection (5), where it says:
In this section the expression 'Northern Ireland Government Loans' means loans for the purposes of which the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland are, for the time being, empowered to advance money out of the Government Loans Fund established by an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland entitled 'The Government Loans Act (Northern Ireland) 1939'.
We suffered very acutely during the period between the two wars from most serious unemployment. The percentage of unemployment was far greater in Northern Ireland than in almost any other part of the country. This was largely due to the fact that we were dependent, and at that time almost wholly dependent, on two great industries—namely, the linen industry and the shipbuilding industry.
The linen industry was very hardly hit immediately after the close of the First


World War by the overwhelming American tariff, which placed upon our linen export duties amounting, in several cases, to 100 per cent. The result was that more than 20 linen factories in Belfast alone had to close. With regard to shipbuilding, while, after the First Great War, there was a very great boom in this industry, it gradually fell off owing to the immense number of subsidised ships which had been built in America and in other countries.
The Government, therefore, were, and still are, greatly concerned to provide, as far as possible, other industries. To induce capitalists to come over to Northern Ireland and to take advantage of the excellent labour facilities, the Government have been prepared to give them sites to enable them to start these factories. That has been done by means of the Government Loans Act of Northern Ireland, which has been extremely successful.
To speak for my own constituency of South Antrim, we have growing up today a whole series of large manufacturing towns on the Northern shore of Belfast Lough. I am very glad that Messrs. Courtaulds have, in one of the principal towns in my constituency, Carrickfergus, established a large factory which gives employment to 3,000 people. In the south my constituency, consisting of 77,000 electors, stretches all round the City of Belfast and goes as far as Lisburn and Ballinderry. In and around Lisburn there, is another very large industrial area largely occupied with the linen industry. It is extremely desirable, therefore, that this Fund should be continued in order to give a guarantee to capitalists who are establishing the new industries.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable a sum of up to £15 million to be advanced to the Government of Northern Ireland for these guaranteed loans. Judging by past experience, the Government—this Government certainly not—and not even the Government of Northern Ireland are really running any great risk because the loans which have been advanced for the establishment of factories and for assisting the laying down of further ships have been repaid in the most wonderful fashion.
Speaking on behalf of my constituency especially, and of Northern Ireland in general, I know that the Ulster Members

of Parliament welcome the Bill. We express our gratitude to the Labour Government for their kindly co-operation with the Government of Northern Ireland. We welcome this as an example of the entente cordiale which has existed for a long time between the two Governments. I am very glad to have this opportunity of expressing the gratitude which all of us, feel towards the Government for having introduced the important Clause 2.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I want to ask the Financial Secretary a number of questions about Clause 2. The Treasury are given authority to raise the necessary money in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939. Those of us who remember the tension which prevailed at that time, will recall that we agreed to practically anything which would facilitate the carrying through of business. No questions were asked and no speeches were made—though there was a fair amount of intolerance about and I accept my share of responsibility for it—because at that time we wanted to do everything we could in order to play our part in prosecuting the war in which we had become involved.
Clause 2 is based upon the Act which was passed in those days, and we cannot now allow a repetition of what took place when that Act became law. Before we agree to this further authority, we ought to ask some questions, especially from the English point of view. We hear much about Scotland, much about Wales and much about Northern Ireland, but we very seldom hear anything said about England. I do not wish to carry this too far, but England is the real centre of the large industrial population of these Islands.
If I understood the Financial Secretary rightly—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong but he was speaking rather hurriedly; I am not complaining about it but it was difficult to hear him because the House was dispersing after Questions—he said that if Northern Ireland could not finance loans on satisfactory terms, we should go to their assistance. According to the Act, the Treasury are empowered to grant loans for local purposes for development, housing and other authorised capital expenditure. In this country large schemes of development are held up—it is due to our difficult


economic position arising out of the war—because of the need to conserve our resources so that we can get the best return. Therefore, before we agree to a further £15 million loan, we ought to ask how it will be used and for what purpose. When we consider the urgent development schemes which are being held up here, we should be given more information about this.
In addition to that, I find myself in the same difficulty as my hon. Friend. The Librarians of this House are very fine men and women. They go out of their way to assist us when we want information, and, in the main, the services which have been placed at our disposal during the past few years would not be realised by Members of Parliament who were in this House years ago, and had to work night and day to get the sort of information which is now placed at our disposal by the librarians. In view of the comments which I am about to make, I felt that that was the least I could say while I was touching upon the matter.
I have been through a number of publications and documents, but I have had great difficulty in satisfying myself about the total amount of the loans which have been granted under the principal Act. We might, therefore, consider ourselves entitled, before agreeing to the further £15 million loan, to ask what are the outstanding amounts; what annual payments are made by the National Exchequer and what income we receive in return from Northern Ireland.
This is the position, according to what I have been able to ascertain. I would point out to the Financial Secretary that there is great interest about this matter in the country, and it would be good if we could get the real facts on record. I examined the Financial Accounts for 1948 and 1949, and I found on page 34, under the heading "Payments to Northern Ireland Exchequer," that the gross proceeds of reserved taxes are approximately £52,500,000. We also find that other issues are made by the National Exchequer under a series of Acts of Parliament, for this is not the only Act involved. It will be seen from an examination of these Financial Accounts that we making contributions to Northern Ireland for various purposes and that they add up to millions of

pounds. I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong. When the income from Northern Ireland is subtracted, the Exchequer grant made is approximately £32¼ million.
I share, from another angle, the views which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) expressed—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not right hon."] If he is not a right hon. Gentleman, he should be because of his very fine record when he served this country under great difficulties, in Paris and other places, when manliness was put to the test. I share his difficulties and his concern, though from another point of view. He has been expressing concern, rightly, because he represents Northern Ireland; but I think the time has come to raise this whole matter of our relationship with Ireland.
We spent Monday and Tuesday discussing the Schuman proposals. We hear a great deal about. Western Union and the need for unity among the many countries of Europe. The time has come when we ought to talk about a little more unity at home. I make all allowances for the national aspirations of the Scottish people and the Welsh, but fundamentally we are British people; and in these days of great change we ought to be working together and working within the Commonwealth to make a greater contribution to the economic development of our own country and the countries of the world at large.
I was delighted when the Prime Minister went to Ireland some time ago. He was followed by the Lord President of the Council. I thought that here, at last, an attempt was to be made to prepare a basis for improved relationship between our two countries. I was very disappointed that it came to nothing. The time has arrived again when this Parliament, and public opinion in general, should assert itself. The time has come to say that the generations of differences between our cousins the Irish people and ourselves ought to be swept to one side. We ought to begin to build upon a new foundation in order to play our part in a quickly-developing world.
I know it is easy to say that, and I know all the difficulties and the strong views held here and there. This is a test for courage and for manliness, and the time has arrived when the Financial


Secretary ought to say exactly what the position is between our two countries. He should tell us what we are contributing to Northern Ireland and what income we are receiving from her. Has not the time arrived when this business should be reexamined? An examination of the kind, I suggest, would improve not only the economic position of Northern Ireland but the economic position of our two countries.
I felt that this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without making a few observations of that kind, so that they may stimulate interest in this House and outside, and among the whole of the British people, with a view to our doing something as soon as possible on lines that will improve the relations between the two countries.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: I understand that we have little time so that I cannot make the observations I intended to make but perhaps there will be another opportunity. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), may not have been quite fair to the Northern Ireland Government, possibly because he has not had the opportunity of obtaining all the figures. I understand that Northern Ireland has made a net contribution to us of something like £190 million since 1922.

Sir Ronald Ross: More.

Mr. Eccles: It is not all a one-way traffic but, no doubt, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, says we ought to look at the position carefully.
When we last discussed the Civil Contingencies Fund three reasons were given for putting in the hands of the Government so large a sum of money as £250 million. The first reason was that if Departments failed to estimate correctly it was a good thing to have recourse to such a Fund. Before the war, that Fund was £1½ million. The question arises now of how much it ought to be five years after the war, when affairs have settled down. It ought not to be very large.
The argument of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), that we had plenty of ways of controlling expenditure of money other than by keeping the Government short will not bear examination.

The Minister of Health produced an Estimate for £228 million. He then exceeded his Estimate by £89 million. Can we possibly say that is good estimating? How could he have kept us in the dark about the finances of the health service during the period of the election had he not been able to put his hands into this Fund to the tune of £54 million? It is not the same thing to come to the House after the money is spent and get a Supplementary Estimate as it is to have to come to the House first.
If, at breakfast time, one's wife says, "I am thinking of getting a new hat," it can be discussed across the table. It is very different if she says nothing and comes back at lunchtime with a hat and one has to pay whether one likes the new hat or not. The second method is exactly that which the Government can adopt because of this very large Contingency. However, I believe another opportunity for debate will arise on the Financial Resolution, when this matter can be gone into further.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Jay: If I may, with the leave of the House, make a brief reply, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) for the support he gave to at least three Clauses of the Bill. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) for what he said about the Clause relating to Northern Ireland. I was struck by what he said about capital development going on there. Very much the same might be said of large works going on in English, Welsh and Scottish development areas.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, in his complaints against the proposed size of the Civil Contingencies Fund, rather neglected the fact that we did not rest the case for that solely upon the possibility of Departments overspending their original Estimates. There is also, of course, the need for working capital in the case of trading Departments, where it is not a matter of overspending but of spending in advance of receipts which will accrue later.
The right hon. Member raised the question of the National Health Service, which had to draw on the Civil Contingencies Fund last winter. There was a similar


drawing in the previous year, against which, I think, no complaint was made by the Opposition. In any case, the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund for that purpose last winter was perfectly correct and in order. We remained within the legal maximum and, of course, a Supplementary Estimate was subsequently introduced to cover the sums involved. The right hon. Gentleman will also recall that a warning had previously been given publicly, in the autumn, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health that a Supplementary Estimate would be necessary. The reason why that Estimate was not introduced earlier was, as, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman himself said, because the General Election intervened.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Royle.]

Committee Tomorrow.

KOREAN REPUBLIC (INVASION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

The Prime Minister: May I, Mr. Speaker, with your leave and the leave of the House, interrupt the Business in order to make a statement?
The House will wish to know what action His Majesty's Government is taking in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Council passed yesterday calling on all members of the United Nations to furnish assistance to the Republic of Korea. We have decided to support the United States action in Korea by immediately placing our naval forces in Japanese waters at the disposal of the United States authorities to operate on behalf of the Security Council in support of South Korea. Orders to this effect have already been sent to the naval Commander-in-Chief on the spot. Notification of this action is being made to the Security Council, the United States Government, the Government of South Korea and all Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Churchill: I need scarcely say that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all parties in the House when he makes this announcement. We shall do our best to give him any support he needs in what seems to be our inescapable duty. I should like, however, to ask him whether the naval force we have on the spot is such as to be able—and I hope he will be able to give me a favourable answer—to make a substantial contribution relative to the American forces which are there?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think our forces are almost the same as those the United States have there.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I add, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, an assurance to the Prime Minister that we are all behind him in the action he is taking and that if there is any support we can give, on behalf of the Security Council, we shall certainly be only too ready to do so? May I also ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the forces there? Will he bear in mind that there is this position—that we hold and are responsible for a very long line and are carrying out a very heavy duty?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: These are, of course, grave matters, fraught with the highest peril. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the House of Commons is to be given any opportunity of discussing them at any time?

The Prime Minister: I think that is a question which might be put to the Leader of the House tomorrow.

Sir Peter Macdonald: The Prime Minister did not mention it but I presume that he has taken action in consultation with the Commonwealth countries. I should like to ask him whether that is so, and what contribution they are making towards the same end?

The Prime Minister: We have our responsibilities under the United Nations. We have taken this action. The Commonwealth countries are, equally with us, members of the United Nations and it is, of course, for them to decide what action they will take.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MISCELLANEOUS FINANCIAL PROVISIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for a temporary increase in the Civil Contingencies Fund, to authorise loans to the Government of Northern Ireland, to give statutory authority for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants in respect of the expenses of police forces in England and Wales, and to wind up the Czecho-Slovak Financial Claims Fund, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required—

(i) for increasing the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund until the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two by not more than one hundred and twenty-five million pounds; or
(ii) for advancing any sums by way of loan to the Government of Northern Ireland, so however that any sums so advanced and remaining unrepaid at any time shall not exceed fifteen million pounds;
(b) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for the purpose of providing any sums to be issued as aforesaid;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of sums repaid out of the Civil Contingencies Fund and sums paid by the Government of Northern Ireland in respect of advances to them, and the issue of such sums out of the Consolidated Fund, and the application of such sums, in so far as they represent principal in redemption or repayment of debt, and in so far as they represent interest in payment of interest otherwise falling to be paid out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt;
(d) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants of such amounts as the Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury determine in respect of expenses incurred for the purposes of—

(i) any police force in England and Wales in respect of which grants out of such moneys have been made before the passing of the said Act of the present Session; or
(ii) any combined police force, county police force or borough police force established in England or Wales after the passing of the said Act."—[Mr. Jay.]

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Eccles: The first item for which sums can be issued is
for increasing the capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund until the end of the year nineteen hundred and fifty-two by not more

than one hundred and twenty-five milion pounds";
The period is too long and the sum too large. The Committee will remember that in 1934—I think that was the date—when the Government advanced money out of this Fund to buy the Codex Sinaiticus from the Russian Government, they did not pay that money back within the year and there was considerable concern about it. The rule was then laid down that monies taken out of this Fund must be paid back within the year. That rule stood until we came to 1946 when the Government asked for five years in which they might make repayments into this Fund. They justified the period of five years on the ground that, as in the case of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, that was a reasonable period after the war for tidying things up.
Here we are in 1950, five years after the war, and we are being asked to give the Government power to spend this money and not to repay it within less than 2½ years. I want to ask the Financial Secretary to tell us the reason why we have to give 2½ years? Whatever hon. Members may think about the size of the Civil Contingencies Fund, surely it is time to get back to the old system whereby the money must be repaid within the year.
Three main reasons were given by the Government to justify so large a sum. In the first place, they said, there was the underestimating by Departments. It is quite clear that if a Department does underestimate, then it has to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate which the House will vote, so that if the money has been borrowed it can be repaid to the Civil Contingencies Fund and, when this happens, there is no need for this provision to run until 1952. The second reason advanced for the size of the Fund requested in 1946 was that His Majesty's Government had to keep large balances abroad. I want to ask whether that reason has not very substantially disappeared. Do the Government anticipate having to go to this Fund in the future in order to build up large balances abroad? We should like to know what sort of sum out of the £125 million they think might be required for this purpose. It may be that military commitments in the East require the holding of balances. I do not know, but I think the Government ought to justify any request for money for this purpose made so long after the war.
The third reason is much the most important in the question of the size of the Fund. The Government say that the main difference between the post-war period and the period in between the wars, so far as the size of the Civil Contingencies Fund is concerned, arises from the trading activities of Government Departments. It is clear that if Government Departments are to buy in bulk then they will hold stocks and those stocks have to be financed. That was advanced by the previous Financial Secretary as the main reason why they were seeking so large a sum.
What is the position in that connection today? I noticed in the Supplementary Estimates which we debated last March that, although there were very large Supplementary Estimates both for the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply, those Ministries had taken nothing out of the Civil Contingencies Fund towards their over-spending. Is it anticipated that they will now want further large sums? This Committee should not allow the Government to take millions of pounds out of the Civil Contingencies Fund for the purpose of financing stocks unless, in exchange, they will give us a stock account at the end of the year.
If it was a private business that was concerned there would be a balance sheet at the end of the year in which there would appear the auditor's valuation of the stock items, and it would be possible for the proprietors of the company to discover whether or not their directors were over-spending their capital and what had been the movements in the stocks. That is not so in the case of public money, and it ought to be. If the Government are to embark upon these very large trading operations they must give us the proper information about stocks.
At Question Time today the Minister of Food refused to disclose his stock of chickens, saying it was not in the public interest to do so. That stock may well be financed with money out of the Civil Contingencies Fund. In answer to a supplementary question the Minister said that if domestic poultry breeders were disturbed by rumours of large stocks he would perhaps make a statement. But how about the taxpayers who put up the money for these chickens? Are they not entitled to have a statement about these

huge sums at least once a year? The argument about public interest in regard to stocks of this kind is often taken too seriously. Hon. Members opposite are always talking about democratic control, but they have no democratic control over a Department which can borrow from this Fund huge sums and give them no stock account at the end of the year.
We require some explanation of the reason for continuing this Fund at £125 million, and for 2½ years. The portion required to meet under-estimating by Departments ought not to be much bigger than it was before the war, allowing, of course, for the rise in prices, because recourse to a Supplementary Estimate is always possible. Before the war the relevant figure was £1,500,000, that is to say, about 0.15 per cent. of the Budget. If the same percentage was allowed today, the Budget being three and a half times what it was before the war, the Government would require no more than £5 million. Why should they want more than that for emergencies and for mistakes in Departmental Estimates?
We all understand why there should be some provision to meet small items. In the case of such events as the Winnipeg floods it is quite proper that there should be a fund out of which assistance can immediately be given. I have looked through a series of items, some of which are quite reasonable. The Lord Chancellor received an advance—which has been repaid—to buy his robes when he assumed office, and that seems quite reasonable. There are the payments that occur from time to time for memorial services in Westminster Abbey or for public monuments, for which there has been no budgetary provision. I think we would all agree about the reasonable ness of making some provision to meet such items.
The Committee should not, however, allow a Minister to under-estimate by £89 million the operation of an ordinary service of the Government such as the Health Service, and cover it up by taking this large sum of £54 million out of this fund, which was not intended for that purpose. I repeat that, judged by prewar standards, £5 million would be enough provision to make for underestimating. It must be a temptation to Departments to spend beyond the point to which they would otherwise go if there


is a large fund into which they can dip and then think up their explanations after-wards. It is always wrong to leave money lying around I disagree entirely with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that this is not an encouragement of expenditure, and that it would not help us to control expenditure if Departments had to come to the House more speedily with their Supplementary Estimates.
How much do we need for building up balances abroad? I have no estimate, and I ask for one. Further, how much does the Treasury really think we need for these trading services and for their working capital? Is it not a fact that the spending Departments now have enormous working capital? Have they not, since the war, built up very large sums of money, and are those not sufficient for their operations? Without a great deal more explanation, I do not think we should allow the Government to have this huge sum for contingencies five years after the end of the war.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I should like to refer in a moment or two to the line of argument which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) has been taking. First, however, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the form in which these accounts are provided. Before we went into Committee, and while the Bill was being considered on Second Reading, I raised a point of order, and drew attention to the fact that I had had difficulty in securing the current accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund. I got them, and I was able to see that certain items which appeared in the accounts for 1948–49 also appeared in the accounts for 1947–48. There may be a perfectly simple explanation, but I should like to know what it is, because one must ask oneself the question, when is a contingency a contingency?
Judging by these accounts a contingency is when the Treasury has forgotten to think about something. Let me take the item in the current account for Osborne. I do not know what contingency is represented by the expenditure of £2,470. I imagine that a lightning decision had not to be taken about that matter; it could have been thought about and decided and included in the Estimates. There is also

the sum of £5,000 in connection with the Register House, Edinburgh.
Apart from these alleged contingencies there is the question of the repetitive items, the Oxford and Asquith Memorial, the Jellicoe and Beatty Memorials and other such items. If one looks at the previous accounts it will be seen that those items were included in the 1947–48 accounts. Therefore, why should they not have been included in the Estimates of the Department concerned for the ensuing year? Why was there this repetition, because I do not see that those items could have represented contingencies. As I say, there may be some explanation, but I do not know what it is.
I now turn to the reason why I disagree very strongly with what the hon. Member for Chippenham said. He drew a sort of parallel. He used the example of the wife who says, over the breakfast table, that she has seen a very nice hat and asks if she can buy it. We all know what our experiences are in such a situation. We say that the family purse will not permit it, and then we give in. The hon. Member drew the distinction between that situation and the case of the wife who greets one in the evening, when one is returning tired from work, with the news that she has bought a hat. That is an oversimplification of the problem. It is surely much more likely that over the breakfast table the wife will say that she would like to buy a certain hat that she has seen in Oxford Street. After some discussion one agrees to that, and then in the evening she meets one on one's return from work and says that as she was taking a bus via Bond Street she saw something rather nicer than the hat in Oxford Street and bought that, and hopes that one does not mind.
That is the precise situation one finds in connection with certain services like the Health Service, in respect of which there is shown in the current account a contingency payment of £51 million. I disagree with the hon. Member for Chippenham in this: He launched an attack on the need for maintaining those large balances against payments necessary because of State trading. What he did not mention, as, I think he ought to have done, was that we must keep in reserve a balance to meet the contingencies of people who do, with justification, demand payment from the State fairly rapidly.
The Minister of Health has been obliged, in the last two or three years, to conduct lengthy and troublesome negotiations with certain persons and bodies providing services under the National Health Service Act, and I think the Committee will remember that, in at least two cases, increased payments were demanded by certain bodies, who were interested in providing services under the Act, and that, after some trouble, the Minister agreed. Now, if those bodies had been obliged to wait for payment for many months nobody would have been quicker than Opposition Members to complain in the House that the Minister was withholding payment.

Mr. Eccles: My complaint is not that the Health Service costs so much, because I think that that would be out of order in this Debate; but that when the Minister found it was costing more than he estimated, he should have come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate and not borrowed a vast sum from the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Snow: I took the hon. Member's point quite clearly; but the point is this: nobody knows better than he that it is not as easy as all that to secure the passage through the House of additional Estimates, and secure the necessary authority to make payments to outside bodies concerned. He knows it takes some time, and he will remember, I think, that Opposition Members have made bitter complaints—I shall not raise a particular case—that payments have been slow, and that the Government have not been speedy enough. This Fund provides the machinery necessary to make payments quickly, and in these days, I think, it is entirely the Government's right to ask the Committee to provide the necessary balance in hand.

Sir Ronald Ross: I had not proposed to address the Committee on this Motion, but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is obviously in such distress at the position in which he thinks he finds himself, that I should like to allay his anxieties on that point. He rather suggested that Northern Ireland was practically bankrupt and was being maintained solely by allowances of money from this country. As a matter of fact,

the contributions that Northern Ireland has made to the Treasury over a period of years are not far short of £200 million. It has been described by Mr. MacBride, the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic, whom no one has ever accused of being unduly prejudiced in favour of Ulstermen, as being the only solvent part of the United Kingdom. Its inhabitants are subjected to rationing in order to provide food for the constituents of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, among others—and for that they have got no thanks.
At the same time, the hon. Member thinks that this is the appropriate time entirely to ignore the wishes of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland, and to make them subject to adjacent neutrals who live in the southern part of that country, and who are distinguished for being the only people who sincerely regretted the death of Hitler and the surrender of his German representatives. It is another example of the reasons why the Northern Ireland Labour Party pathetically passed a resolution banning any hon. Member opposite from speaking in Northern Ireland without their consent. The fearful disasters that would follow such a speech as that from the Northern Ireland Labour Party, are patent to anyone.
I hope that the Financial Secretary, if he can spare a moment to say so, will explain to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, how there is a payment backwards and forwards, and how the net result is a substantial contribution by Northern Ireland to the Treasury.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I take no objection to what the hon. Member has said, because he is entitled to his point of view, but I hope he will remember that I did say that payments were made.

Sir R. Ross: I accept the somewhat limited apologies of the hon. Member, but I think that if he made a further study of the whole matter his anxieties would be set at rest.
This whole thing is purely a matter of a piece of financial machinery to allow us, who pay the same taxes as are paid in Great Britain, to have the same facilities for such loans as the loans that are made. The most important, to my mind, are the loans for the building of homes for the working classes, because Ulster


was bombed a good deal worse than Stoke-on-Trent, and if this financial machinery were not available it would not be possible for building schemes, and so on, to be carried out in the way in which they are carried out in this country. It is merely, as I say, a piece of financial machinery, owing to the fact that there are two separate Ministries of Finance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Professor Savory) thanked the Government. Well, I do not know that they have done us more than justice. Justice, I grant, they have done, but I do think they are under an obligation to us, who pay the same taxes, to put us on all fours with the people of England, Scotland and Wales, from whom we never will be parted.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While not objecting to the criticisms levelled by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), I must place it on record that his is the kind of superior tolerance which is causing so much of the trouble in the world. His are also the kind of ideas that have caused so much trouble between ordinary peoples for generations. It is the kind—

Sir R. Ross: Did the hon. Member not hear me say that we would not be parted from Great Britain? Could he be precise and say to what part of my speech he objects?

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. Member knows to what I am alluding.

Sir R. Ross: No, I do not.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am complaining about the whole attitude of the hon. Member in his speech. He spoke about the contributions in the war. Well, I have my own concern about that, and I expressed it at the time. But surely, if we can discuss for two days the ideas that were expressed in the House about our resuming our relations with the Germans, it is reasonable to suggest that the time has arrived when we should apply the same approach when dealing with people who are our customers. It is quite obvious that the sort of attitude from which we have suffered for generations in this country, and in other parts of the world, is still the attitude of the hon. Member. In regard to our own ideas, we believe the time has arrived

for improving our relations, and it was upon that basis that I made the contribution that I did.

Mr. Jay: First, by way of comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis. Smith) said, I would assure him that Clause 2 of the Bill relates entirely to loans for capital expenditure by local authorities in Northern Ireland, and has nothing to do with the general financial relations between this country and Northern Ireland. Therefore, if I were to go into any wider questions than those of capital expenditure by local authorities, I should be out of order.
In answer to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who asked me several questions, I should, perhaps, first say a word about the rule that advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund should be paid in the year in which they are made. I think that the hon. Gentleman was there under a misapprehension. He suggested that, by the 1946 Act, it was possible for advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund not to be paid for five years. That, of course, is not the case.
The individual advance to a Department has to be paid, in virtually every case, within the same financial year. What the 1946 Act did was to set a limit at the end of 1950 for the period in which the total advances outstanding at any one moment should not rise above the figure of £250 million. That was the significance of the year 1950 in that Act.
5.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman also asked for an estimate of the figure we expect the working balances abroad of the trading Departments to reach. I am afraid that it is not possible to give an estimate of that figure, because working balances at home as well as abroad are concerned, and we rest the case now, as indeed we rested it in 1946, on the need for working balances both at home and abroad. The trading Departments must, of course, at times build up large stocks, as the Ministry of Food did in the case of linseed oil at one point and then ran them down over a period. It is inevitable, I think, that they should have money available with which to do that.
The hon. Gentleman then suggested that the need for working capital for


the trading Departments could not have been the main reason for the use of the Civil Contingencies Fund, because he said that the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Supply had been relatively small in the last two years. That would not prove that they had not drawn to a considerable extent on the Civil Contingencies Fund. If they drew on that Fund for working capital and then paid it back out of their receipts later, it would be only their net expenditure for which they would require a Supplementary Estimate, and that would not necessarily correspond with the amount they had borrowed from the Civil Contingencies Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) asked about one or two small items in the last accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund. He referred in particular to the entry under the heading of "Osborne" and another under the heading of the "Oxford and Asquith Memorial," and he asked how it was that identical items appeared in two successive years, and how those could be contingencies. I understand the answer is that by a tradition which was not started by this Government but has, nevertheless, been maintained by it, expenditure on memorials is normally carried by the Civil Contingencies Fund from year to year and is finally voted in the normal way in the year of completion. That is a curiosity rather than a normal procedure, but it is the answer to my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Assheton: I do not wish to add very much, but I should like to say that I hope that by the Committee stage of the Bill the Financial Secretary will be able to give a more precise account of the need for this figure of £125 million. I have taken the trouble to look through the advances made during the last year. No doubt the Financial Secretary has done the same. He was rather obscure about what had been advanced to the Ministry of Food. It appears from the account that, in fact, £40 million was advanced to the Ministry of Food and £20 million repaid. What we shall want to know at a subsequent stage is how the Financial Secretary justifies this figure of £125 million. When the time comes I hope that he will give us a precise and detailed account of the reason. We do

not just want a vague suggestion that money may be wanted for trading accounts or for Supplementary Estimates. We want to know more precisely what he thinks it will be needed for.
I should also like him to consider, and to be ready to give a more complete answer on the next occasion to the question, why the Supplementary Estimate for the Health Departments, which run into this enormous figure, was not presented earlier. It must have been quite clear to the Department. In fact, it was quite clear early in the autumn that they were very much exceeding the amount of money which had been voted to them by this House. There was no need for the Supplementary Estimate to be postponed to so late a date; it could quite well have been brought in before Christmas. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who I see here, knew whether there was about to be a General Election, I certainly did not know. There was nothing to prevent his Department bringing in a Supplementary Estimate at an early date, as soon as they became aware that this great over-expenditure was taking place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

MIDWIVES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 6.—(RULES AS TO MIDWIVES UNIFORMS.)

5.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, in page 5, line 5, to leave out from "midwives" to the end of line 6.
The House will remember that when we last considered this Bill in Committee I explained that the issue which arose on the question of the uniforms midwives should be entitled to wear was not one about which the Government felt very deeply one way or the other. Although we did then feel that the balance of advantage might be in allowing the local authority to decide this matter for themselves, in view of the strong feelings that were, I think, fairly unanimously expressed in Committee, that there should


clearly be a full opportunity for the midwife to wear the new national uniform that was being approved, I gave a pledge that I would put down a suitable Amendment at this stage of the Bill which would clarify the clear intention of another place, where an Amendment had been carried the effect of which was not very clear.
We have put down such an Amendment which would leave out the words that were included in another place and challenged as being, to some extent, doubtful in their construction, and there is a further Amendment in line 14, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any agreement made whether before or after the passing of this Act) between a local health authority or other body or association and a midwife employed by them for the purpose of attending on women in their homes as a midwife or maternity nurse shall be void in so far as it precludes the midwife from wearing a uniform prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) of this section.
This makes it quite clear that the midwife will have the full right to wear the new national uniform if she so desires, even though there may be an agreement with the local authority about some locally-designed uniform.
This is a very small matter. It is limited in the terms of our Amendment to domiciliary midwives, which we gathered was the desire of the House. I must say that there has been criticism of this from some local authorities. If, in certain localities, there is in use a local, distinctive uniform I am sure that the midwives in the area will be content and happy to continue to wear it; but should a midwife desire to wear the new nationally-designed uniform she will now have full power to do so.

Dr. Broughton: The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has put down these Amendments so that we may not only discuss the question of midwives having a national uniform, but also decide that they shall have the right to wear that uniform if they so desire. I should like to say just a few words in support of the Amendments. I have had the opportunity and privilege of working in close co-operation with midwives for a good many years, and that experience has shown me quite clearly the value of their

work. Theirs is a profession which I hold in high respect.
In discussing this Bill, I think we must keep in the forefront of our minds that we are dealing with matters affecting women who, at all hours of the day or night, attend the mothers of our country when they are in labour. If we can grant them any favour or if they can be given any reasonable privilege, then I think that we should be happy to do so. I support these Amendments because I think that there should be a national uniform for midwives and that they should have the right to wear it if they so desire. I hope that the Amendments will be accepted and that care will be taken to design a uniform fully in keeping with the dignity of an honourable profession.

Dr. Harriett Stross: I listened with great interest to one sentence which came from the lips of the Parliamentary Secretary. He spoke of the new uniform and then said that if there was a uniform prescribed by local authorities, he had no doubt that the local midwives would wish to wear it. To make the matter clear, may I ask him two or three questions which have been put to me by the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent.
First, will these Amendments and the Clause as it will stand if amended, confer on midwives the statutory right to wear the prescribed uniform, irrespective of the wishes of the local authority? Secondly, will this mean that there is a departure from the principle that all matters concerning conditions of service should pass through, as they have done in the past the machinery of the appropriate Whitley Council? I think it is reasonable to suggest that questions such as the type of uniform which should be worn, the frequency of its use, etc., have universally been considered in the past to pertain to conditions of service between employer and employee and have been handled by the Nurses and Mid-wives Whitley Council. On this council all interests have been represented.
Thirdly, if this becomes law, has the Parliamentary Secretary considered whether there will be a new anomaly created with respect to other members of the local health authorities, such as those who are in the domiciliary nursing service? They will be wearing a uniform


prescribed for them by the local health authority, whereas there will now be a uniform for midwives prescribed by the National Authority. Does he not think that that will create some dissatisfaction? I have no great feelings about this, except that I would personally prefer to see a national uniform, but I have to put these questions and I should be obliged if I could have an answer to them.

Miss Horsbrugh: We should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the consideration which he has given since the Committee stage to this point of a national uniform. We knew that a national uniform had already been designed, and the only point which we were considering and what we discussed fairly fully was whether the midwife had the right to wear that uniform if she wished to wear it. We see from the Amendment that she will have the right to wear it. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, if she prefers to wear the uniform which the local authority has prescribed, she will be able to do so. In other words, the choice is now left to the midwife as to the uniform she will wear, and I am glad that the choice has been left to her because I think that in our discussion it was considered in all parts of the House that this was what the midwife wanted.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: When the Parliamentary Secretary put forward this Amendment he stated that when this matter was last discussed in the House the point of view contained in it was more or less unanimous. It really was not so, because I remember speaking to an Amendment stating the exactly opposite position, and I pointed out the confusion which it would cause in Glasgow where we have already a uniform which is traditional and fairly well liked.
While I appreciate the laudable desire to raise the status of the profession by introducing a uniform where there has not been one before, I think that we are falling into an error through this modern curse of uniformity in pressing for a national uniform instead of taking into account regional considerations. I can well imagine what some in my regi-

ment, the H.L.I., would say if they were told that there was to be one uniform for the whole of the Army and that the H.L.I, had to do away with its "trews" tomorrow.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are not saying anything of the sort. We are allowing a wide freedom and I hope that in a case like Glasgow, where a uniform is universally respected and is specifically worn, midwives will naturally desire to continue to wear it.

Mr. Ross: It is all very well to have these sweet words from the Parliamentary Secretary, but if he reads the Amendment he will see that
Any agreement made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) between a local health authority or other body or association and a midwife employed by them…
relative to dress
shall be void.
In other words, it may as well not be there. It may be that we shall get confusion of uniform in places where there is a traditional uniform, and I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has fallen into that error which I sincerely regret.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Am I correct in reading into this Clause that it would be possible for two midwives employed by the same authority to wear two different uniforms—one to opt for the national uniform and the other to go on wearing the local uniform? If the answer to that question is "Yes," does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that that would be a desirable outcome from the point of view of the service?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We rather gathered that there was difficulty because it was thought that we were trying to impose uniformity in uniform, but it has now become clear to the House that we are not doing anything of the sort. I do not think that any great principle would be affected by one midwife wearing a different uniform from another. They do not parade together in large numbers as a rule, and I should have thought that on the whole this proposal of ours was reasonable. I think that we ought not to make more of it than really exists. I am quite sure that local authorities, on consideration, will be able to secure a satis-


factory working of this arrangèment, and that where there is a satisfactory local uniform already in use the midwife will desire to continue to wear it.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: I should like to say a few words in support of the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). It is felt in our area that there will be some confusion if midwives are permitted to draw their uniforms from two sources. I do not know if the national dress is coming from some common pool as distinct from the old arrangement. This, as has been said, is an attempt to satisfy everybody, and particularly the midwife herself. That is very laudable. In these matters, however, local authorities have given great consideration to the correct view of the servants, midwives and nurses in their areas, and I should have thought that after all the trouble they have gone to in making the Whitley machinery work there was something in their point of view.
However, as the Parliamentary Secretary said it is not a very weighty matter, but I must say that this does not seem to me to be a particularly sound administrative way of dealing with it. On the other hand, I am not fearful as is the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that everyone will be regimented. That is, as the Parliamentary Secretary and the right hon. Lady the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) made clear, just what is not intended by this. I should have thought we would have listened to the experience of local authorities and midwives on this matter. I do not think that has been done sufficiently.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I rise to support a purely local interest. My own area, Nottingham, like Stoke-on-Trent, is somewhat concerned about the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies). A uniform is, after all, a sign of service, and the service the midwives are rendering is not to the midwives board, but to the people of Nottingham in our case. For that reason, if there is a clash of taste or wishes, the uniform of the community should have precedence over the uniform designed by a central board. The genius of our country is not expressed at its best in the design of uniform. I hope that

in this case great care will be taken to ensure that a really attractive uniform is designed for this profession.

Question put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 14, at end, insert:
(3) Any agreement made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) between a local health authority or other body or association and a midwife employed by them for the purpose of attending on women in their homes as a midwife or maternity nurse shall be void in so far as it precludes the midwife from wearing a uniform prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) of this section."—[Mr. Blenkinsop.]

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed with Amendements.

ROAD HAULAGE UNDERTAKINGS (EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION)

5.53 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move,
That the Draft Transferred Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1950. a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.
The House, in considering these Regulations, should keep in mind that this is the first time in the history of the road haulage industry that any effort has been made to establish a code for compensation. In the case of the railways, electricity and the London Passenger Transport Board, codes have been established and are generally recognised. There is a good deal of knowledge concerning those industries, but that is not the case with the road haulage industry. Regulations in connection with nationalised industries have been before the House from time to time, and we have become aware of certain common features that run through them all. There are certain features which also apply to the road haulage compensation Regulations, although in other respects they are different for the reason I have indicated.
Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I referred to one or two of the main features that are common to all these Regulations, namely, the qualifying conditions. As in the other Regulations, an individual, to qualify for


compensation, must have served in the industry since 1st January, 1940. He can then establish his entitlement to compensation for loss of employment, for loss or diminution of emolument or pension rights, and for worsening of conditions. The cause of the claim must arise within 10 years of the date at which the British Transport Commission took over the undertaking in which he was employed. I think we can claim that to be a reasonable period. I hardly think anyone would argue that a cause for claims should go on for ever. There must be a period fixed when normal circumstances of business management must prevail.
A claim must be made within two years of the cause arising, or within two years of when the individual might reasonably have been aware that a claim could arise. Provision is made for the payment of interim amounts. If there is any delay while a claim is being assessed and it is not settled within the period of 13 weeks, then the individual can resort to the appeal machinery. These Regulations are the same as those in the case of electricity and gas in regard to appeals, namely, that a dissatisfied claimant can resort to an independent board of referees established by the Ministry of Labour. These tribunals of the Ministry of Labour are a well-established feature of that Department and are brought in under these Regulations.
I do not pretend for a moment that an industry of this description which has no history, will have many individuals who can establish their rights to pensions, but we must make the necessary provisions in the Regulations. I am proposing to introduce Regulations under Section 98 of the Transport Act to cover any claimant who had pension rights, including expectation of pension, under his old employment. These will be fully preserved in the form in which they existed at the time of the loss of employment.
It would have been very desirable if I could have introduced the pensions Regulations at the same time as the compensation Regulations, but, as Members are aware, we have had some 2,000 to 3,000 undertakings that have been in process of passing from their owners to the adminis-

tration of the British Transport Commission, and it was essential that we should have complete knowledge of what existed in these undertakings before we could provide pension Regulations. We now feel that the process is sufficiently complete to proceed, and the drafting of these Regulations is being considered by my legal advisers.
I want to allay any anxiety that may exist in this respect, because whilst it may not represent a general interest, it is a personal matter. Any individual who was entitled to any pension facility under his old employers might feel anxious as to whether his rights are safeguarded under the new regime. I can give the assurance that this will be done under these new Regulations. The present Regulations provide an addition to pension rights in the case of men over 40 who are likely to experience more difficulty than younger men in securing settled employment if, by any chance, their services should not be required by the British Transport Commission. The addition is equal to the amount by which pensions would have been increased had there been one additional year reckonable on the basis of each year the man served after the age of 40, up to a maximum of 10 such added years.
At this stage I should like to make another point clear. Under the procedure adopted by the British Transport Commission in taking over road haulage undertakings, many have been acquired by voluntary agreements. These Regulations only cover those which have been compulsorily acquired, but I think it is essential for me to make it plain now that, although the Regulations as drafted do not apply to the undertakings that have been taken over voluntarily, all these conditions will be accorded to the staff and the employees of those voluntarily acquired undertakings, and there need be no anxiety at all on that point.

Mr. David Grenfell: Does this extend to a working partner of an undertaking taken over, because he, too, is a workman?

Mr. Barnes: No, not if he is part-owner of the undertaking. He would get capital compensation for the business. We have to bear in mind that in the road haulage industry a large proportion of the owners


worked very hard in their business, but this applies only to their staff and employees.
In arranging this compensation there was no previous code within the industry to follow, but we have endeavoured to adhere as closely as we can to other compensation schemes. Because there is no code, we are aiming to establish here the standard of a very good employer rather than basing it on a code. I would not wish to convey that a great majority of the people in this industry will get other than the minimum benefit that the Regulations propose. While that may be the case, there is a provision that any person who can prove expectation to any compensation better than the minimum provisions shall be adequately safeguarded.
Another point I ought to emphasise is that these Regulations are very different from those of some of the other nationalised industries that have been taken over. They deal not only with the problem of expectation, but with the problem of whether any individual whose services are dispensed with will suffer an undue handicap in getting similar other employment. In that connection it should be noted that the fleet of vehicles in the possession of the British Transport Commission does not establish a monopoly in road transport, and such a thing cannot be argued. The present fleet of the Executive numbers 37,000 vehicles engaged in the main in long-distance transport, and there are 13,000 vehicles engaged in railway work which are, of course, not covered by these Regulations.
There is no monopoly here, for there are alternative forms of employment in the industry. In March of this year the independently owned vehicles with A licences, including A2 licences, numbered 62,000 vehicles, the B licences numbered 64,000 and there were 691,000 commercial vehicles operating under the C licence system. If the 37,000 vehicles owned and operated by the British Road Services are compared with the licences under private enterprise, we can see quite easily that the greater part of this industry is not covered by the conditions here, and if any individual should lose his employment as a result of nationalisation, there is a very wide field for obtaining other employment.
The other matter which it is desirable to emphasise in regard to the period of qualification is that of any break in service. An individual who qualifies within the period must have served continuously under either some A or B licensed operator, and he would only be eliminated from continuous employment if he were absent from those undertakings for a period of more than 18 months. War service, Civil Defence service and all wartime service considered by the Government to be National Service, are disregarded in this respect.
These Regulations were discussed extensively with a great number of organisations interested in the subject. I do not propose to read out the list unless any hon. Gentleman wishes to know whether a particular organisation was consulted, and I am not suggesting that we obtained enthusiastic agreement from all the trade unions in regard to the conditions. They naturally desired us to be more generous. Nevertheless, they recognised that we were taking a very considerable step forward in this industry. Nobody with knowledge of the road haulage industry would suggest that it has been the practice of private employers who dismissed an operator to give him 13 weeks' pay on the basis of two-thirds of his wages less unemployment or sickness benefit. If the employee had been in private service up to the age of 45 years, he would not have had an additional week's pay for every year of service up to 26 weeks. We are establishing, if you like to call it so, a minimum code which represents a very substantial advantage.
I can recollect 20 years ago when there was no order in the road haulage industry with regard to the regulation and licensing of vehicles or the conditions of labour. With the coming of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, and the licensing of road haulage vehicles, the trade unions were gradually put into the position of establishing fairly reasonable conditions for the staffs. It is left to this moment for the road haulage industry to be lifted, perhaps not to the same level as the railway or the electricity industries, but at least to be started on the road by Parliament establishing the right of compensation to an individual who is displaced by any Parliamentary Act for loss of employment, if his emoluments are in


any way impaired, or with regard to his pension rights if there is any change which represents a worsening of his conditions. Therefore, I commend the Regulations to the House. Some hon. Members may wish we could have done more, but this is a very substantial beginning and I trust it will receive unanimous approval.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: We do not propose to divide the House upon these Regulations. As a matter of fact, we think they ought to have been presented before and we have been waiting for them for a very long time. I have constantly sought such opportunities as one can take in transport matters, which are precious few, to press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when we should see these Regulations. I have no doubt that there are other hon. Members with knowledge of the trade unions who have done so, too. I do not know the cause of the delay, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may tell us at some stage of the proceedings.
In any event, we now have them here. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, their purpose is to compensate people who have been thrown out of work owing to the process of nationalising or integrating the road haulage system. They may be drivers or managers. The Regulations cover a wide field of persons who may be servants of the individual companies. There is quite a large number of them and there will be a good number more by next year, because the British Transport Commission, if not a monopoly at the moment, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, are doing their best to make themselves a monopoly at the earliest possible occasion.
I have received a letter from Sir Cyril Hurcomb saying that the permits under which many firms are operating at the present time will probably be withdrawn. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman could confirm that. It will mean that more of these men may find themselves out of work, because the activities in which they were engaged will be no longer there. The firms which now employ them will be bankrupt or be taken over by the British Transport Commission. [An HON. MEMBER: "The

same thing."] I agree that it may be the same thing. They will find themselves seeking to get what relief they can from these Regulations.
These Regulations are not very controversial at the moment. They are accepted, but I take the opportunity of making one or two comments upon them. They will apply to some very hard cases, such as the man of 50 or 60 years of age who may have spent the whole of his life in this industry. He suddenly finds his livelihood taken away through no fault of his own. It is very right and proper that we should look carefully at the conditions under which compensation is to be paid, to see that it is done justly and properly. The first thing that the Regulations do, in Regulation 1 (3) is to lay down the conditions under which a man is regarded as an
existing officer or servant.
He has to fulfil those conditions in order to come within the Regulations at all. He has to have been employed for between eight and 10 years, since January, 1940. Why did the Government make that particular condition? It seems rather a long time for a man to have to establish.
The Government are making it harder in this and other fields for anybody to get compensation for injury suffered through action of the Government or of any other person. Later on, we are to discuss compensation for local government officers, which is the same kind of point. Under the Local Government Act, 1933, a local government officer thrown out of work by the operations of the Boundary Commission did not need to show eight or 10 years. This is a new clause introduced by the Ministry of Health. There was the Indian Civil Servants Act, 1947. They were given five years. This condition of eight or 10 years' service is too much, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the point and to give us the Government's reasons for insisting upon that length of time.
I want to ask the Minister another question, perhaps a subsidiary but still an important one. It is about what I might call the hybrid case of the man who at one moment was the owner of a business and then became its servant. Several cases of that kind have been brought to my attention. For example, in


1940, a man was the owner of a business in the ordinary sense. Perhaps he was a partner, or was his own master. He turned the business into a limited liability company between 1940 and the date when it is taken over. From that moment, he became the servant, though he was not the servant in 1940. Therefore, he cannot claim under these provisions.
That seems to me to be a hardship, and I think the House might consider it to be a hardship. He has been in the business, but his status has changed during that period. On the face of it, one would think that he should have the right to claim the same compensation as a servant who had been employed for a longer period, and that is a matter on which we should like to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman.
Then there is one other matter which arises under the proviso to the second Regulation. I do not think anyone would have any objection to the proviso as such, but the gist of it is that if a man is offered a job, it need not necessarily be in the same area as that in which he has hitherto been working. He may have to move from one part of the country to another, and that is taken as an offer of an alternative employment. I am not objecting to it, but I think it is a matter which ought to be administered rather sensibly.
It is not easy for people to move from one part of the country to another, particularly a married man without a large income who may, let us say, have been working in Cornwall and who is offered an alternative job in Northampton, where there may be no house for his family. He is up against all sorts of difficulties. If that proviso is to remain, the people who are to judge these cases—the British Transport Commission—ought to be given instructions to administer this arrangement in a generous spirit, and not expect people to move about the country as easily as the order happens to be made.
The third and most important point to which I wish to draw attention is the provision in the Second Schedule which says that in the granting of these compensation payments
regard shall be had to the existence in his case of any right or expectation under customary practice to the payment of compensation in the event of discharge, of reduction in earnings, or of worsening conditions.
According to the right hon. Gentleman's

speech today, that Regulation could be held as a complete case against granting almost any compensation at all, because the whole gist of his speech was that they never had this sort of right before. If the Minister told us once, he told us half a dozen times that he was doing something new in the transport industry, and that in the old days these rights to compensation did not exist. If regard is to be had to the fact that they did not exist, it will mean that the British Transport Commission will say, "You did not have the right before; we are not going to give it to you now."
It is no good our just being amiable and helpful with one another in this House and saying how much we would like to help everybody; we must remember that the people who will administer this will have to look at the wording of the Regulation under which the compensation is given. Indeed, they would be failing in their duty if they went widely outside it. I am deeply concerned about that particular provision. I think that the test is a wholly unfair one.
Of course, it is perfectly true that in the road haulage industry there were no widespread arrangements for compensating people who lost their jobs. But then they did not contemplate being nationalised. That is the answer. We cannot altogether criticise them for not having arrangements of this kind. They would be arrangements to meet a contingency which simply was not anticipated. Individuals might lose their jobs, but nobody visualised a sort of wholesale reorientation and reorganisation of the whole industry. To suggest that they ought to have foreseen that and made arrangements for dealing with a changeover of that size is really quite remarkable.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The hon. Gentleman is adducing a very interesting argument, but surely he must take account of the point that this is a comparatively new industry and that the people in it were not exercised a few years ago about compensation, but only about a decent rate of remuneration for the job. In fact, there was intensive competition some 15 or 20 years ago, and a chap considered himself lucky to have a job at a reasonable rate of pay. Legislation had to be introduced after investigation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and I do not quarrel with what he says. It was a young, growing, expanding, competitive industry. I would also add that there were lots of firms in it. Indeed, one of the criticisms which used to be made was that there were too many firms in it. Of course, we can differ on each side of the House as to the weight which ought to be attached to that argument, but the fact is that if in those days a man found he was no longer required in one particular firm, there were the competitors down the road to whom he could go for a job.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Or start up for himself.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, some of them started on their own, but in circumstances of that kind it would be rather remarkable to find a widespread system of compensation arranged for loss of office and matters of that kind which are much more appropriate to a solidified, developed industry, such as the railway industry, where one naturally expects to find arrangements of that character.
In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look very carefully at this point. I do not think it is he who is going to administer the Regulations. The decision, in the first place, is to be made by the British Transport Commission, and then there is the court of appeal. I am not saying anything against either of those bodies, but they will have to consider and be bound by the Regulations. If they look at the Regulations as drafted at the moment, and if they have regard to the existence or otherwise of compensation arrangements—which we know did not exist—I am not sure that they will not have the duty to refuse a great many of these claims, and I do not think that is what is wanted by either side of this House.
That is all I wish to say about these matters. I hope we are all anxious to have these Regulations drafted in a way which will enable the people concerned to deal with the real cases of hardship which arise under this nationalisation scheme. There are many matters of controversy between us regarding transport, but I sincerely hope that everybody will try to make these Regulations as fair and as generous as possible. That being so, I ask the Minister to think carefully over

what I have tried to say as moderately as possible, and to do what he can to bring about that position.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: I wish, first, to thank my right hon. Friend for the assurance he has given in respect of the staffs of undertakings which are voluntarily acquired. It would be manifestly unfair if, because of the reasonableness and good will of their former employers, they should be penalised compared with employees of a firm which had been compulsorily acquired. The only thing which made me hesitate to speak in this Debate was that I found myself in almost complete agreement with what was said by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft). Like him, I have been watching the Order Paper for a considerable time, hoping that these Regulations would come before the House for approval and that they would be implemented as speedily as possible.
Generally speaking, the Regulations are in harmony with conditions which apply in other nationalised industries. They are good Regulations, but they could be better, and if the points made by the hon. Member for Monmouth and my colleagues who intervene are noted by the Minister, I hope he will take an early opportunity of improving the Regulations. I cannot forbear reminding hon. Members opposite that the task of the Minister would be much easier if anything in the nature of superannuation schemes or compensation provisions had obtained in the industry long before nationalisation came about. Nobody can deny that the legislation of the past two years has done much to improve the conditions of service of people in that sphere of transport.
The hon. Member for Monmouth drew attention, in his closing remarks, to the most important point of these Regulations, namely that the onus is placed upon a man of proving the right of expectation. Surely that is imposing an impossible task upon many men who are likely to suffer the grievous disability of worsened conditions, of being made redundant, or of being asked to remove from one part of the country to another. Reference has been made to the railways, but there was a time when there was no expectancy so far as they were concerned. Expectancy was created by


people who were interested in the welfare of railway employees, and if the argument in favour of these Regulations had been used then, railway employees would have been denied compensation terms for all time. Surely expectancy is a natural and legitimate right of men who, through legislation, have their conditions worsened or are transferred many miles from home or who may be made completely redundant.
So in welcoming the Regulations in a general sense, I beg the Minister to give heed to the point made by the Member for Monmouth which I am emphasising, namely, the unfairness of imposing upon a man the difficult task of proving the right of expectation. I would prefer the Minister readily to admit that all men possess that right, and that in making provision for compensation he will give them equal opportunity.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I want to reinforce two of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) because they concern many hundreds of people engaged in the road haulage industry at present. The first relates to the 10-year period. I am convinced that it is wrong to put any such period in the Regulations. I should have thought that 12 months would have been a fair safeguard that they were bona fide employees, and that between 12 months and five years there could have been one rate of compensation, going up as it went beyond that time, pro rata with their length of service. Since there are no concerns which will be outside the scope of the Regulations if they go through in their present form, I want to underline that point.
The second argument concerns the man who was a part-owner within the 10 years but is now an employee. If the Minister insists on retaining this 10-year period, the man's period as owner ought to count. It is not a question of wanting to protect a wealthy road haulage proprietor. We all know that in our constituencies there are ordinary workmen who have invested their savings to start up in business.
I was concerned at the reference of my hon. Friend to the fact that the Transport Commission may be taking away some of the permits given over the last few years.

I hope they will be reluctant to do that on a large scale because of the hardship it is likely to bring to people who have over the last 12 months or two years bought new lorries at considerable cost. If they are taken away on the same compensation terms as we have had in the past, that will be a real hardship.
I have a personal question to put to the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the British Transport Commission now own 37,000 vehicles. Do we really own them? How many of the 37,000 are paid for? I never feel I own anything unless I have paid for it and have a receipt. However, my real purpose in intervening was to underline the two main points made by my hon. Friend. I am certain we shall be causing hardship to genuine employees if we retain the 10-year period and I am certain we shall not be just, if we exclude people who were part-owners within the 10 years and have since become employees.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I suggest to the House, in its consideration of these Regulations, that of all the nationalised projects none has borne more harshly on the individual than this part that took over the small road haulier. I am prepared to do everything I can to improve the terms of compensation, both for the owner and also for the workman who may be displaced.
The terms envisaged in these Regulations are not very generous, and to my mind do not completely do justice to the workman displaced from his employment. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) pointed out how Regulations of this character might be avoided completely by the substantial terms of the Second Schedule. I hope the Minister will deal with that point fully before we agree to these Regulations.
There has been some criticism of the fact that the Regulations were not brought forward earlier. I cannot join in that criticism, because February of this year was the vesting day for most of these firms. I cannot see how the Minister could have visualised those whom he had to compensate before this time of the year, since it has allowed him only three or four months to form some estimate of the bill to be faced in this direction.
My next point concerns the qualifying period of service and broken service for


Army, Navy, or other National Service purposes. I should like the Minister to place on record that these Regulations cover a man who has been directed by the Minister of Labour. I shall be grateful if he will deal with that point before the House agrees to these Regulations which we all welcome.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I want only to make two short points, one of which is to reinforce the reference made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), to the fact that a man must be employed for eight or 10 years in order to comply with these Regulations. I do not see the relevance of that period in any way. This is compensation for loss of office, and I think we should look to the future expectation of a man remaining in his job and to the terms of his service rather than to the past. The only relevant requirement is that he should have been actually serving when the undertaking was taken over.
The other point which I want to mention is that under Regulation 2 (1), on page 4, one of the conditions which the man has to satisfy is that—
he is without his consent in a worse position with respect to the conditions of his service as a whole (including tenure of office, emoluments, sick fund or sick pay, and pension rights) as compared with the conditions of service formerly obtaining in respect of him.
I think the phrase "conditions of service" is intentionally wide enough to cover broadly the case of a man who may be offered another job in another part of the country and in totally different conditions of employment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clear up that point when he replies to the Debate.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I should like to draw attention to one matter in these Regulations which I think is of some importance. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on the extreme importance of this matter to the person who may be making a claim for compensation under the Regulations. Anyone making such a claim will want to understand the Regulations and will want to know exactly how much he will be entitled to. I recognise the virtues and merits of the

Regulations, but, on the other hand, it is also true that a man who has been discharged, even when he succeeds in understanding these complicated Regulations, can in certain cases have no kind of certainty, when looking to his own future, about the payment that he will receive.
If I may take the example of a case to which I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention, it is that of a man of 64 who has done as many as 20 years' service with the company which has been acquired, and who was earning £7 per week at the time of his discharge. That is quite a common type of case. The amount which he can get, or be certain of getting as of right, under these Regulations, is one annual payment of £242. It is only one year's payment because that is the period which brings him up to the normal maximum retiring age, and it is only £242 because that represents two-thirds of his current emoluments.
The man may have had an arrangement with his employer to continue at work until he was 70 or until some much later age. As likely as not, there is no pension scheme to which he can look for benefit, so that he finds himself in a serious situation, and that is the maximum which these Regulations offer him firmly and definitely. It is quite true that in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Schedule, the Commission has a discretion to extend the period of the award, and may even extend it at half the rate for the rest of his lifetime.
It is only fair to these Regulations to point out that it is within the discretion of the Commission, in such a case as I have indicated, to make a very generous and handsome award, but it is a pity that it should be discretionary—and why should it be? To put the point as shortly as I can, in paragraphs 11 and 12, instead of the words "may in their discretion award," I suggest there should be the words "shall award," because such an alteration would get over the uncertainty which is just the element to which I object in the provisions as they affect many of these cases.
I would add that my observations are not only relevant to the cases of men who are discharged just before reaching the normal maximum retiring age, but are also relevant—and there are several cases of this sort—to those who are discharged after having reached the normal


maximum retiring age, the men going out after 65. Under the Regulations, they get no definite award whatever. All they get is that it is open to the Commission, in the exercise of its discretion, to assess an award for them on the basis that they have, in fact, been discharged a little before they reached the normal maximum retiring age. The uncertainty in these paragraphs constitutes a defect in these Regulations which in many other respects are extremely fair and generous, I should be extremely grateful to the Minister if he would deal with that point.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: If I may have the permission of the House to speak again, in order to reply to some of these points, I would deem it a favour if we could get these Regulations before we pass to other Business.
I much appreciate the assistance given by hon. Members and the atmosphere of the House in facilitating the passage of these Regulations, and I hope that I did not say anything in my introductory remarks which conveyed the impression that I thought these Regulations were generous or over-generous. I make no such claim. What I do feel is that we are making a start in this industry, and, for that reason, I am gratified to find that in all quarters of the House these Regulations have been approved.
In reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), I would state that these Regulations, in the first instance, were laid before the House on 15th March, and they are only now being considered at the end of June. That is a matter of Parliamentary Business, which is not exactly my responsibility. I hope the hon. Member will appreciate that this process of acquisition only started, either voluntarily or compulsorily, on 1st January, 1948. The process has been continuously proceeding and a considerable time had to elapse before we could gain any experience of the problem which we had to tackle.
In a case like this, when we cannot issue Regulations without consulting all those persons and bodies concerned in this indusry negotiations conducted with a great number of organisations of necessity take a considerable amount of time, but, nevertheless, I think it has been to our common advantage, because it has

removed a good many difficulties which I would have had to face if I had avoided any consultations of that character. I would remind hon. Members that with this type of Regulation we have no power to amend. We either have to approve it or reject it. If this had been a Debate in which we could have drawn on the experience of hon. Members by way of Amendments, it would have been another matter, but I had to obtain that advice before the Regulations were submitted.
The hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) and for Monmouth referred to the eight years' qualification in order to establish a claim. I think the hon. Member for Peterborough thought it was a period of 10 years, but the period of 10 years is a period within which a cause of claim can arise, qualification dating from 1st January, 1940, until 31st December, 1947, when the matter passed into the hands of the British Transport Commission. Whether that period is right or wrong, this is one of those principles or conditions that have been established in all these regulations and it would not be possible to use in these nationalisation regulations—

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. It would be 10 years under the relevant Act, but this is being put here from 1st January, 1940, and the fact that he has done it on another occasion is no reason why we should follow a bad precedent.

Mr. Barnes: No, but the point I was making in relation to whether we could change like this, is that this period has been established in the other regulations. I do not think that in this instance there is a case in which I could have departed from that general condition.
In regard to the part-owner case which the hon. Member for Monmouth submitted to me, the hon. Member for Peterborough asked why, if a person who owned a road haulage undertaking in 1940, and in 1942 or 1944 turned it into a limited company, he should not be entitled to compensation. The answer is that he does not conform to that qualification, and I do not see why—whether the condition is right or wrong for the moment I am not arguing—a person who is an ordinary wage-earner, operator, or driver of a vehicle and comes into the industry in 1942 or 1944, should not


qualify, but an owner who has transformed his business for his personal advantage should qualify. I do not think one could meet a case of that kind in equity.

Mr. Nicholls: Surely the part-owner was relying on that particular firm for his livelihood for the whole time, and an ordinary employer, who came in at a later date, would not have been relying on that particular firm for his livelihood.

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree. A person who becomes a limited liability company is making a good thing out of it and that is why he follows a process of that description. I fully accept the general view and presentation of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Monmouth. The regulations are drawn in a fairly wide sense, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has indicated. My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) stressed that discretionary power is to be given to the British Transport Commission, or the referees, as the case may be. That should not be interpreted this evening as being for the purpose of evading responsibilities. In an industry of this kind, in which there is no previous history, it was necessary for this drafting to be in a wide and generous sense with a view to being as generous as we possibly can.
I am satisfied that comments made by hon. Members will be borne in mind by those who have to administer these regulations, especially where there are discretionary powers. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), pressed the point that the onus is placed on the man to prove expectations. Certainly it is, and I do not attempt to evade that—that is, if he wishes to establish a claim beyond the minimum condition. Everyone gets the minimum period of 13 weeks, and provision is made that any person who can establish expectation beyond that gets benefit comparable to the value of the expectation. But I would not wish it to be assumed that a person who loses his employment and who, under some previous administration would have been dismissed at a week's notice, would not receive consideration.
In reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill about the 64 years of age claim and the

65 years of age claim, as he pointed out, in the case of 64 years of age the Commission would have the right to proceed beyond that period. Hon. Members have quoted the man of 65 years of age, and have said that it is hard if he loses his employment at that age, that it arises out of nationalisation, and, therefore, he should get compensation. While that appeals very strongly to one's sympathy, one must bear in mind that an individual of 65 years of age has given the whole of his life employment to the road haulage undertaking as a private firm. In the normal way, many concerns retire persons of 65 years of age, and it would place an undue burden on the British Transport Commission if we argued that they ought to have a statutory right of compensation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the Second Schedule. If he reads it he will see that the whole question of compensation, ignoring the 13 weeks, is dependent upon whether or not there is a right established in the industry in respect of the person. At the end of eight weeks the Transport Commission can write back and say, "No, we are sorry. There was no expectation in your case and you are not entitled to anything." I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again. It is not a question of a man getting the minimum. Could I have an answer?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think there is anything to answer on that point. As I have indicated, anyone who can establish a claim under the eight-year qualifying period in the 10 years in which the claim arises, and especially any right of expectation, can get the minimum conditions. If a person can establish a claim or expectation beyond those minimum conditions, he can get compensated in proportion.

Mr. Thorneycroft: But to get a penny piece they have to establish a custom in the industry which, the right hon. Gentleman admits, does not exist, and this makes the Regulations quite meaningless, as hon. Members opposite quite properly argued.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Transferred Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be approved.

INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS)

6.59 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Family Pension Funds) (Amendment) Order, 1950, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament on 16th June.
I hope this Order will not detain the House for long. It is a question of a draft Order to amend the Order of 1936 governing Indian family pension funds. Its purpose is solely to extend the range of investment in which the Commissioners of these funds can invest their funds. That is because it is proving difficult to meet the rates of pensions as the pensioners are living longer than it was calculated they would. The effect of the draft Order would be to enable the rates of pensions to be increased because the yield of these funds, we hope, would be larger—

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Gordon-Walker.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

SOUTH SHIELDS EXTENSION BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(COMPENSATION TO EXISTING OFFICERS.)

(1) Every existing officer who suffers loss of employment or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the passing of this Act shall be entitled to have' his case considered for the payment of compensation by the Corporation such compensation to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations, 1948, and subject to the provisions of this section those regulations shall apply accordingly with any modifications which the Minister may by order consider it necessary or expedient to make for the purpose of the application of the said regulations to compensation under this Act.
(2) For the purposes of this section and the said regulations as applied thereby the expression "existing officer" means a person who immediately before the passing of this Act devoted the whole of his time and had devoted the whole of his time for a period of not less than eight years previously after attaining the age of eighteen years without a break of

more than twelve months at any one time either—

(a) to any of the following employments or to two or more or to any combination of such employments namely:—

(i) employment under the Crown or in the local government service in Great Britain; or
(ii) employment by any authority or body for the purposes of the Crown or of local government service in Great Britain; or
(iii) employment under any officer engaged in any such employment as aforesaid for the purposes of the functions of the employing authority or body; or

(b) partly to any such employment as aforesaid or to two or more or to any combination of such employments and partly to—

(i) employment as a superintendent registrar or registrar of births and deaths or as a registrar of marriages or as a person designated by a local authority to act as a deputy superintendent registrar or registrar of births and deaths; or
(ii) war service as defined by the said regulations undertaken on ceasing to follow any of the employments mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or any combination thereof.
(3) Nothing in this section or in the said regulations as applied thereby shall entitle a person to have his case considered for the payment of compensation unless—

(a) the cause of the claim arises not later than ten years after the passing of this Act;
(b) the claim is made not later than two years after the date on which the cause of claim arises; and
(c) the other conditions prescribed by paragraph (b) of regulation 5 of the said regulations are fulfilled.
(4) In this section the expression "officer" includes a servant.—[Mr. MacColl.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House may find the proposed change is a little complicated to understand, but I wish to make it clear in moving this new Clause that I have not the least desire or intention of holding up the Bill in any way. I am quite well disposed to it. As a native of Sunderland, nobody could feel more benevolent than I do towards South Shields, and any attempt to tidy up the local government situation in the north-east region must appeal to anyone who is interested in the future of local government.
This new Clause deals with a particular question, which is the form that compen-


sation is to take for local government officers who may be affected by the proposed boundary changes. The history of the matter is that the Clause originally came up in Committee on the report of the Minister of Health and the decision of the Committee, or the recommendation, was that it should not be adopted, as the Committee were of opinion the question was one of general policy for the House to decide; and that is why it now comes before the House as a new Clause.
If hon. Members will look at the rather long new Clause and also at Section 36 of the Act, they will see that what it really amounts to is a substitution of what one might call the 1948 code for the code which is to be found in Section 150 of the 1933 Act and in the Schedule to that Act.
There are, broadly, two ways in which a local government officer can find himself suffering a loss of office or diminution of emoluments so as to entitle him to compensation. It can either happen through a change in the boundaries of his authority, or from a transfer of function from his authority to some other authority or to the central Government. In these days, that second cause, the transfer of function, is a much bigger matter than the alteration of boundaries. Many more people are affected by the transfer of function than are affected now—and so far as I can see are ever likely to be affected—by alterations of boundaries.
I wish to make clear that at present the vast majority of local government officers likely to become liable to claim for compensation already come under what one can term the 1948 code. That code, I think, has been used in something like a dozen Acts which have been approved by this House, dealing with matters like the National Health Service and the transfer of town planning powers from district councils to county councils, and so on. The Regulations which embody the code have, of course, been presented to the House in many different forms in relation to the different Acts. In particular they were presented to the House in connection with the National Health Service, and a Debate then took place on the advantages and disadvantages of the new code. Finally, the Regulations were passed without a Division. It is clear that the code has had the full sanction of Parliament already and

affects the vast majority of local government officers.
This Bill is the first specific case in which the alteration of areas has come up for consideration since the war. Therefore, it seems to me to be only common-sense that we should take the opportunity of assimilating all compensation procedure in the small number of cases likely to arise in the extension of borough boundaries into that which has been laid down for the larger number of cases of transfer of function. I do not think there is anything very sacrosanct about the 1933 code which at present appears in the Bill. That code is binding in the case of a small number of extensions that come under the Order from the Minister of Health. It is perfectly true that the Clause has generally been included in Private Bills dealing with the extension of borough boundaries. But each of those extensions has in fact been in a separate Bill coming before the House, and this is the first occasion since the new code was formulated and approved by the House that the question has come up for consideration—

Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask why the hon. Member did not propose a similar Motion in connection with the Wolverhampton Bill?

Mr. MacColl: The best answer I can give to that is the one given by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) on the British Transport Bill, and that is that there is another place. If any anomalies do arise, that matter can be cleared up at some later stage.
If the House agrees to this Clause, it is reasonable to suppose it will be accepted as common form for all Bills of this character. A point to bear in mind in looking at that compensation code is that we wish to be certain we are doing nothing unjust or unfair to extremely deserving people like local government officers. Anybody who has been in local government service must be perfectly clear in their own minds about that. At the same time, there are also wider economic interests to be considered and it is necessary to see that the compensation code is sufficiently up to date that it does not create anomalies or place an unfair or unnecessary burden on the public funds.
There is a further point which is particularly important. It is that the code should not be of such a character that it encourages people to settle down as pensioners on public funds, but leaves them with an incentive to get reasonable alternative kinds of work. I ask the House to look for a moment at what seems to be the most important difference between the 1933 code at present in this Bill and the 1948 code which I am seeking to substitute for it. In the 1933 code compensation is paid without reference to length of service. Another point is that compensation once it is fixed is only suspended or abated if the officer gets employment in the public service, not in general employment, but employment in the public service. So it is quite possible that a local government officer—and local government officers being of the very high quality that they are it is a reasonable assumption that this is likely to happen—can get a very remunerative job in private employment and yet continue to be entitled to draw his pension, which he may have obtained as a result of very short service indeed.
Apart from that, it is a life pension and goes on even if he would not, had he continued in public service, become entitled to superannuation. Now that superannuation schemes are compulsory upon local authorities—they were not in 1933 when the old code was formulated—there is a bigger anomaly than ever. The 1948 code establishes an eight-year qualification period before people become entitled to compensation. It provides also for a period of review of two years during which time the compensation granted can be adjusted after taking into consideration any alternative employment which has been open to the applicant, whether it be in the public service or outside. It also provides that, when the officer reaches a pensionable age, the compensation which he receives shall be adjusted to include the pension rights which he had obtained.
Both schemes are based on a proportion of so many sixtieths of the earnings of the officer and the number of years of service. In the 1933 code there is provision for what are called "added years." For example, if a man has been 25 years in the public service, he would get 25-sixtieths of his final earnings and. in addition, added years. That means

that, in addition to the years of service, he would be credited with additional years varying according to the number of years' service which he has had over a certain minimum.
The 1948 code does something which I think will commend itself to many hon. Members. It substitutes weight for age for weight for service. It does not look at the question of what the total period of service may be in order to add the extra years: it looks at what is the important problem from the point of view of obtaining alternative employment, and that is the age of the officer. The code adds additional years to the number of years of age over 45 instead of taking into account merely the number of years of service.
There is another important difference. The 1948 code does not provide compensation for part-time officers, whereas the 1933 code did. I recognise that under this provision there might be a risk of anomalies arising. I would only comment that the principle of not compensating part-time officers has already been accepted by Parliament. It is the principle which operates in the majority of Acts affecting the status of local government officers. I was not a Member of Parliament when that principle was approved, and I cannot be held responsible, but I suggest that it seems reasonable that one should accept the principle in the small group of cases under discussion.
The Act of 1948 which is mentioned in this new Clause actually dealt with the class of rating and valuation officers of whom a number are part-time officers. Therefore, it is probably more germane there than it is to this discussion. One can see the difficulties. It is not easy to assess the actual loss which has been caused to a man who has alternative sources of employment and who, perhaps, is actively pursuing his profession as well as doing local government work.
Finally, there is a provision which everyone must regard as an improvement. In place of an appeal to the Minister under the 1933 code in cases of disagreement, there is an appeal to a properly constituted specialist tribunal established by the Minister of Labour in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. In other words, instead of an appeal becoming an


administrative matter dealt with in the ordinary course of events by the Minister, through his office, it becomes a matter for consideration by a specialist tribunal in a particular area. The same tribunal will operate for all the different Acts under which compensation is payable. Thus, we will get a reasonable prospect of uniformity in the standard of compensation awarded under the various Acts.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: Will the hon. Member tell the House that 10 or 12 tribunals will be set up under these 1948 Regulations?

Mr. MacColl: I used the words "in a particular district." It is correct that these tribunals deal with between 10 or 12 districts. It has been a complaint that certain disparities have been shown between the standards of compensation awarded. That seems a matter which can easily be adjusted. Although I have not come across any significant cases, if there is any foundation for the criticism, there is no reason why the matter cannot be adjusted between the various tribunals. I think it would be a sad day if this House were to reject the idea of having properly constituted tribunals for the final appeal, and if we went back to the old idea of having appeals dealt with in the ordinary course of business by the Minister. The latter practice has been violently criticised, both inside and outside this House, as an undesirable feature of administrative law.
I am sorry if I have taken up too much time. This is not a subject which lends itself to lightness of touch or delicacy of treatment. I have put before the House the main features embodied in the change which I propose. I emphasise again that it is not the case that suddenly we are picking on local government officers and trying to push something through which has not been considered and on which there has not been adequate Debate. The facts are precisely to the contrary.
We are trying to bring into line with what is now the established procedure this small group of officers who are likely to be affected by borough extensions. There are not likely at any time to be a large number, but I am sure that anyone who has had a close experience, as I

have had, of this very fine body of people, the local government officers, will agree that nothing is more likely to cause trouble in the service than having two different systems of payment at work.
Therefore, the general policy ought to be to assimilate these to a common code. I suggest that the House can accept this new Clause with the confidence that they are not doing anything unjust or unfair, but that they are at this stage taking a step which it will be much more difficult to take later. This group of borough extension Bills which have been considered recently contain the first alterations of boundaries since the 1948 code was established. This is the moment at which the local government officers ought to be brought into line with the established code.

Mr. W. Griffiths: I beg to second the Motion.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Gunter: I am grateful for being allowed to speak so early in this Debate. I wish to declare my interest immediately. I was Chairman of the Private Bill Committee which considered this Bill upstairs, and I should like to make the position clear to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). My objection to the new Clause is based on the procedure adopted by the Minister in bringing it into effect.
The Committee upstairs gave the fullest consideration to a proposal on which they never ought to have been asked to adjudicate. It is my opinion that the Committee Were faced with a conflict of interest, not between the promoters of the Bill but between the National Association of Local Government Officers and the Minister of Health. I believe that the proper place to decide the issue was on the Floor of the House, and not in a Private Bill Committee.
The Committee in their wisdom decided that the 1933 code, if I may use that phrase, which was embodied in the original Clause 36 of the South Shields Extension Bill, should stand part of that Bill, in the knowledge that the Committee had, that the Minister might have the opportunity of ventilating his case, and other Members of the House might have the opportunity of ventilating their


side, upon the Floor; and this House could arrive at a decision.
I therefore wish to say, first, that I rather object to Private Bill procedure being used for this sort of purpose. I do not think it is fair to those who take the responsibility upstairs of listening to Private Bills. I wish to make it quite clear that my remarks and objections to the new Clause are based entirely upon the question of procedure. The plain issue was whether the 1933 code, which was built up—let us be quite fair to the National Association of Local Government Officers—over a long period, and was enacted upon the Floor of the House in 1933 after a very long Debate, should be removed and whether the Minister should have his way in introducing the 1948 regulations, which, if I may say with very great respect, had never been fully debated upon the Floor of the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I assume that my hon. Friend would agree that they certainly came before this House and were discussed on the Floor of the House.

Hon. Members: Not fully.

Mr. Gunter: If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will permit me, I will return later to his interjection. The Committee, in their wisdom, decided that the matters of substantial principle that were involved in this case should come down here and be discussed on the Floor of the House.
Now, the Minister seeks to introduce the 1948 code on the grounds that the compensation Clauses of the 1933 Act are not suitable for present-day conditions, that we have moved away from the conditions that prevailed in 1933, and that a new set of circumstances exists. I am not prepared to dispute that contention of the Minister. I believe there is a real case to be made for a revision of the 1933 code, but, having said that, there is a just way in which to do it.
I repeat that I believe that the Minister is right but I wish to emphasise that I believe he is entirely wrong in the method which he has chosen. It is only five years ago since the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act was passed in this House. That Commission was

given full authority at that time to alter county, borough, and county borough boundaries, and the House at that time maintained that the 1933 code should apply to any officers who were affected under that Act. That was only five years ago. It is only seven months ago since the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Act went through the House. I challenge the Minister that then was the time for him to bring in and to argue this case.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not at all.

Mr. Gunter: The Minister was silent on that Bill, and therefore if I may say so with respect to the Minister, the Committee upstairs, seeking, as they must do, to understand the intentions of Parliament, were entitled to believe that it was the will of Parliament, at least, seven months ago, that the 1933 code should be maintained.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No. I do not want to keep interrupting, but surely my hon. Friend would agree that as this was certainly not included in the Bill, it was quite outside the scope of the Bill, Parliament had no opportunity at all of expressing its views upon the point.

Mr. Gunter: That is the point of which I complain. The Minister should have had an opportunity—

Mr. Blenkinsop: But the Minister—

Mr. Gunter: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my case properly; my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of making his presently. I repeat that six or seven months ago, upon the Floor of the House, was the proper time for ventilating this matter. I therefore suggest to the Minister that the House was fairly clear in its intentions that the 1933 code should prevail until, I suppose, such time as the comprehensive review takes place, if it does take place, in 1951 or 1952.
The 1948 regulations had been in operation for 18 months when the dissolution Bill was before the House seven or eight months ago. It is rather remarkable that if a change was contemplated, some mention was not made of the fact when the Bill was debated in the House. If it was in the Minister's mind that the 1933 code was completely out of date, it is a pity that he did not tell the negotiators of N.A.L.G.O. when they


met him in March and April, 1948, when discussing the local government compensation regulations. It is rather strange that he did not give an indication then that he proposed to use those regulations on the wider basis of full local government operation.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is quite unfair to N.A.L.G.O. now to come forward by Private Bill procedure and suggest that the whole code should be altered throughout local government, or at least as far as the alteration of county boroughs is concerned, without giving them any indication in the negotiations that took place that that was in his mind. The 1933 code, undesirable as it may be for modern needs, was enacted by Parliament after a full Debate and I submit that if it is to be amended it should be amended by a general Bill and not by Private Bill procedure.
The Minister, in his own words, has restricted the scope of extension Bills upstairs. He knows very well that he will not facilitate the passage of any extension Bill if it is substantial in character. In other words, the county borough which seeks to extend its boundaries must prove an urgent and immediate need for land for housing. For that reason, no great extensions whatever are taking place. In other words, very few local government officers indeed will be affected by any extensions which take place. It is doubtful whether even five persons would be affected by the present group of extension Bills.
For the life of me, I cannot see why this matter has been raised on a Private Bill, why it could not have been left until 1951, and why negotiations could not have been entered into with N.A.L.G.O. I believe that they are a responsible body of people who would agree that there is something in the contention that the 1933 code ought to be altered. In my submission that is the way in which the matter ought to have been dealt with, or that, alternatively, the Minister should have come to the House and explained that it was his policy to use the local government compensation regulations of 1948 so far as any persons were affected by the extension of a borough.
While I could not oppose a review and an alteration of the compensation terms

of 1933, while I believe that the time has arrived when consideration should be given to new and more up-to-date forms of compensation, I believe it is wrong that the Minister should niggle in this way by Private Bill procedure and do it in this manner; for let it be borne in mind that under the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Act county review orders may come forward in 1951. The 1933 code will apply to any affected persons under these orders. We may thus have the example that a person affected by Private Bill legislation will have one set of compensation regulations and a person living next door to him and working for the next authority will have another code of compensation.
There is nothing logical in the way this is being done, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the matter, for I have opposed it simply on the grounds of procedure. I do not want to conclude on a controversial note, but I must say that it is another instance of the utter confusion which is being created in local government by the present Minister of Health.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: The speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) will have made it clear to the House that there are involved in this matter questions which are of much wider and more general importance than the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) might have led the House to suppose. The Chairman of the Committee which considered the Bill has made a most valuable contribution to the Debate. He has pointed out that what the Minister is seeking to do by means of the new Clause is to substitute a code of regulations which have the force of a ministerial order and not the authority of full debate and discussion in this House for the earlier code contained in the Act of 1933 which was the result of long negotiations between the associations representing the parties concerned and which received the full approval of this House as part of the Local Government Act, 1933.
It is a most undesirable thing that where the House has enacted a code of regulations for determining these questions, the Minister should now be seeking


to substitute for it a different code which has no more than the force of a ministerial order.

Mr. MacColl: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say where it is laid down in the 1933 Act that the 1933 code shall be used for borough extensions?

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member knows that in the Section of the 1933 Act to which he has referred it is laid down that the code in the Fourth Schedule is to be applied to all boundary extensions tinder that Act. I agree with him that that does not include extensions of county boroughs. As he knows, county boroughs can only be extended by Private Bills, but it had been the invariable practice to include in Private Bills for the extension of county boroughs the code which had received the approval of Parliament in 1933. That is what I am saying ought to be done in the case of this Bill.

Mr. MacColl: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to be unfair. There are now two codes both of which have received the approval of Parliament, and they are both eligible to be included in a Private Bill. Before the war there was only the 1933 code. It is a little unfair to say that my new Clause substitutes something which has not been before Parliament. There is nothing in the 1933 Act which says that one code rather than another should be included. Surely it is much more sensible to choose the better code, which everybody agrees is the 1948 code?

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member does not appreciate my point. I am saying that where there is a code of regulations which has received the approval of Parliament and which Parliament has enacted shall be included in the orders by which local government boundaries other than county borough boundaries are extended Parliament ought to include that code in the case of county borough extensions, which have to be carried out by Private Bills, and that we should not be invited to substitute for a code of regulations which Parliament has approved a code of regulations which has no more than the force of the Minister's order, subject only to annulment in this House.

Mr. MacColl: The 1948 code has been approved by a resolution of this House. It is not a negative matter of annulment;

it has been approved by a positive resolution of the House after Debate. My argument is that it is far more sensible to include in Private Bills the code which now covers the vast majority of local government officers, Parliament having decided so, rather than to go back and resurrect the 1933 code which only applies to a comparatively small number of local government areas covered by ministerial and other orders. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish to put my point fairly, and not to imply that this is something which we have invented for the purpose.

Mr. Hutchinson: I have been endeavouring to treat the hon. Member's arguments as fairly as I can, and I think that I make my point quite plain. The hon. Member rested his argument very largely upon the grounds, as he did in his intervention a moment ago, that it was undesirable that there should be two codes of regulations. I agree with him. I think it was quite unnecessary for the Minister ever to introduce a second code at all.
The hon. Member claimed that the effect of his Clause would be to assimilate the conditions under which compensation is paid to different classes of local authority officials. What he and the Minister are seeking to do will have exactly the opposite effect. As the hon. Member for Doncaster pointed out, as recently as last November the House enacted the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Act, 1949. By that Act the provisions for the revision of local government boundaries, other than the boundaries of county boroughs, which are contained in the 1933 Act were expressly revived.
It is something like 10 years since alterations of local government boundaries on any extensive scale took place, and we must now expect that proposals are likely to be made under the 1933 Act for alterations of boundaries. It is true that the power to make these proposals is temporarily suspended and will not come into operation until 1951, but after 1951 we must anticipate that these proposals will be made. All these proposals for the alteration of boundaries, in so far as they give rise to claims for compensation, must be carried out upon the terms of the regulations in the 1933 Act, so that we shall then get the very situa-


tion about which the hon. Member complains.
We shall get one class of local Government officials becoming entitled to compensation under the old code, and we shall get another class of officials, who are affected by the extension of county boroughs, becoming entitled to compensation under the new Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Widnes that that is a most undesirable thing. I should have thought that the right way to prevent that state of things coming about would have been for the Minister to have refrained from doing what he is doing now, by endeavouring to insert in these extension Bills his new code of regulations.
The matter really goes further than that. The hon. Member for Widnes seemed to be unaware that four Bills have passed through this House for the extension of county boroughs in the last few weeks. Each contains the regulations of 1933, and the Minister has taken no objection.

Mr. Blenkinsop: It was agreed that this particular Bill should be regarded as the case upon which the matter should be properly decided, and it has already been agreed in another place to use the new Clause in Bills which have been started in another place and will come before this House later.

Mr. Hutchinson: My information is that it was agreed in one case that a decision in this Bill should govern a decision in that Bill as well, but only in one case. My information is that there are three other Bills, on which there was no agreement at all, in which the 1933 code has been inserted and there are, I think, three Bills in another place into which the Committee in another place has decided to introduce the 1948 regulations. The result of that has been to create a chaos which is far worse than any which existed before.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me to say so, that is just not the case. It certainly would be creating chaos if we were to insert the 1933 regulations in this Bill. In fact, in another place, as I have already explained, they have inserted the 1948 regulations; and no doubt they will

take notice of the decision we come to here in their decisions about other Bills that are awaiting their attention.

Mr. Hutchinson: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is really sidetracking this point. The fact is that four Bills have been passed in this House containing the 1933 Clause. We do not know what may happen to them in another place, but, according to my information, there is no agreement at all as to what course is to be taken or not taken in another place. The position, as it exists tonight, is that there are four Bills which have passed this House, including the Wolverhampton Bill which was passed the other night, in which the Minister took no steps—

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman must not go on repeating this point. It is perfectly clear that they have accepted the 1948 code in another place. Therefore, naturally, they are awaiting the decision of this House as to what action they should take in regard to other Bills awaiting their attention. There is no likelihood of any confusion, provided this House does not adopt the 1933 code.

Mr. Hutchinson: I still submit to the House that it is a very unsatisfactory state of things that some Bills should be passing through this House with one set of Clauses in them and others with another set. It would have been much more logical and more respectful to the House that the Minister should have taken steps, if he thought it desirable, to make sure that this House has the opportunity of expressing an opinion on each of the Bills, dealing with this matter, which pass through this House.
As the hon. Member for Doncaster said, the Minister had an opportunity, as recently as last November, of amending the Act of 1933 if, in his opinion, the Act called for amendment. The Act of last November, dissolving the Boundary Commission, expressly revived the provisions of the Act of 1933 for local government boundary adjustments, other than the adjustment of county boroughs. I would have thought that that was the opportunity which the Minister had to amend the earlier Acts, if he thought it was desirable to do so. These regulations of 1948 had then been in force for something like 14 months. I believe they came into force in July 1948.
If the Minister thought that a repeal of the regulations of 1933 was desirable, there was no reason at all why he should not have done it then. If he had done it then, this House would have had the opportunity, which I think it ought to have, of considering an amendment of the earlier Act. It would have given us an opportunity to consider these regulations in detail and, if we thought fit, to amend them—an opportunity that we do not get under the procedure the Minister is now following.
I hope the House will take the view tonight that, if the Minister considers the regulations of 1933 are no longer appropriate to the present conditions, he ought to seek to amend the Act of 1933 in the proper way and not use the methods which are being used in this Bill. I do not propose to dwell upon the respective merits of these two codes of regulations.

Mr. MacColl: Why not?

Mr. Hutchinson: I know that some of my hon. Friends are very well acquainted with them and, no doubt, will say something about them. I only desire to say this: these 1948 regulations are not particularly good regulations. As has been said, they have been introduced into the various Acts which transfer services from the local authorities to the newly constituted national authorities; so there has been some experience of working them. They have produced some very remarkable results.
The 1948 regulations set up tribunals by which questions arising out of these regulations are determined. There are different tribunals in different parts of the country. My information is that there are now something like 10 or 12 of these tribunals adjudicating upon these questions of compensation. They are all coming to different conclusions, and there is no body to co-ordinate these decisions and make them uniform. The result is that, within the scope of these regulations themselves we are getting a great variety of decisions on their application.
The hon. Member for Widnes claimed that one of the merits of the 1948 regulations was that the whole service for which compensation is payable must be either local government service or service, in a public authority, and that it excluded altogether officers who were partly en-

gaged in an occupation which was not in the public service. In fact, that has produced most unfair results. There have; been cases in which officers have spent nine-tenths of their time in public appointments but, because the whole time was not so spent, they are not entitled to compensation at all. I suggest that it is most unjust that an officer who has spent, the whole of his time in the public service, should receive no compensation at all. That is a most unfair and unjust arrangement.
I have no wish to dwell on the respective merits of these two sets of regulations because, in my submission, very much more important questions are at stake. But I desire, in conclusion, to say that if the House had to choose between the regulations which it enacted in 1933 and the regulations which the Minister is now seeking to substitute for them, then those regulations which were approved by the House in 1933 are much fairer to the officers and, on the whole, more just than those which the Minister now seeks to substitute.
I hope the House will reject this Clause and will allow the Bill to proceed in the form in which it was promoted. If the Minister desires that these regulations should be amended, he should come to the House in the usual way with amending legislation, in circumstances in which this House can discuss and debate the whole matter and can decide what it is prepared to accept as the basis for assessment of compensation for these local government officers.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ewart: I am asked by the promoters of the Bill to say, first, that they are quite indifferent as to which code is placed in the Bill—the existing code of 1933 or the code as laid down in the Act of 1948. The promoters of the Bill, South Shields Corporation, are desirous to get the Bill through and to get on with the necessary job of extending their boundaries and building the houses which are urgently required. They maintain the attitude which they adopted during the Committee stage of their Bill—complete indifference as to whether, in effect, the regulations of the Minister are applied or whether the National Association of Local Government Officers win the day.
I want to say a few words about the regulations themselves. From what has been said from the other side of the House it appears that there is no objection to the 1948 code, but that there is an objection to the method and manner in which the Minister has conducted the business of opposing the code by an Amendment at this stage. It would appear from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Hutchinson)—speaking for himself or for his party; I do not know which—that the objections from hon. Members opposite mean that we have two different codes operating in local government service and that that position should continue, even though it is top-heavy and lopsided.
The majority of local government officers are covered by the 1948 code. They are covered by that in the case of transfer of functions but, in a small number of cases under county council review orders, the 1933 code is applied. Because the 1933 code applies in a small number of cases, the Opposition argue that we should extend the anomaly by applying the 1933 code to others, although it is agreed in principle that the 1948 regulations are preferable if we are to meet modern day conditions and modern day standards. That seems to be the position.

Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. Hutchinson indicated dissent—

Mr. Odey: No such contention has yet been made.

Mr. Ewart: The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, said that his principal objection concerned the method adopted by the Minister in imposing the 1948 code in dealing with the extension of county borough areas.

Mr. Hutchinson: The hon. Member knows that I also said that if the House had to choose between these two codes, then the 1933 code seemed to me to be the more just of the two.

Mr. Ewart: Let us examine the 1933 code and see whether it is more just and equitable than the 1948 code. As I understand it, the 1933 code gives a pension for loss of office and that pension is abated only if the displaced officer takes employment as a result of which he draws his remuneration from public funds. The pension is awarded to the officer not for loss of earning power but for loss of office, and it continues for life.
Since the 1933 code was passed there has been the intervention of the 1937 Local Government Superannuation Act, and the officer displaced under the 1933 code can enjoy for life the full compensation which would accrue to him under those regulations. On the other hand, retired officers in the same grade who have not been displaced would receive the appropriate superannuation payment on retirement at 65. The 1933 code, in effect, says this: here is a pension which you take with you all the time. I would agree with the contention made by hon. Members on this side of the House that the 1948 regulations are preferable in order to meet the present day standards in so far as we are enjoying an era of full employment. The opportunities for obtaining employment are more plentiful both within the public service and outside the public service than they were in 1933.
In this case, South Shields say there will be none displaced and, in the case of the Bill which hangs on this, the Sunderland Bill, there, too, it is said that none will be displaced. It has been said that a precedent will be set here which would affect the four Bills mentioned earlier which will be amended in another place, and I estimate that in those four cases there will not be one displaced officer under the extension procedure. If there were a displaced officer in this case, he would have his compensation award met by the simple method of formal application. If he were not satisfied he could go to the tribunal.
Hon. Members opposite can take no objection to that because previously they have objected to ministerial action, particularly in the nationalisation Bills, and have demanded independent tribunals for the determination of cases. If such an award were made to a displaced officer he could very easily obtain employment outside the public service and could enjoy the full pension for life in addition to his remuneration. That would be a happy state of affairs if it applied to all classes and all grades. If it applied to the dockers, the shipyard workers and the miners there might be some justification for the Opposition arguing for its retention or its extension in the case of local government officers.
The difference between the situation now and that in 1933, is that then the Opposition could take full credit for the


1933 Act and code, as they must take full credit for the conditions that obtained at that time—conditions not of full employment but under which there was a standing army of two million unemployed, and when the prospect of obtaining employment was a dismal one. It was also a time when a man, whether he had been displaced from office or whether he became unemployed in the ordinary way, was too old at 40 and could not get a job if he was over that age. In the light of those standards there might have been some argument in 1933 in justification of the 1933 code but there is no justification today for the continuance of that code in a situation of full employment and better opportunities.
Are the 1948 regulations unjust? That is what we, particularly on this side of the House, have to ask ourselves. Is the code unjust, and will it create hardship? Its effect simply is to lay down that instead of being compensated for life for loss of office a person shall be compensated, within the scale laid down, for loss of remuneration, while that person is genuinely seeking other alternative employment and is unable to obtain it. If, on reaching 65, that person has continued to receive compensation under the code, then that compensation will be adjusted and he will receive the equivalent of what would have accrued to him under the Local Government Superannuation Act.
That is a perfectly just and reasonable arrangement, and considering that the majority of local government officers are conditioned to the 1948 code, the argument to the contrary is that a very small number displaced under county council review orders and the one or two who might be displaced under county borough extension Bills should have treatment preferential to that accorded to the majority of officers, who are conditioned to the 1948 code.
The principal argument has been whether or not the Minister has adopted the right method in introducing the regulations in Bills such as the one which we are now discussing. There is the precedent of the 1948 Act, and it might be argued that from that time every Measure affecting local government officers who are subject to displacement should have had the 1948 code applied to it. I believe it is a very serious conten-

tion that when Private Bills go upstairs for consideraiton the Committees appointed to consider such Bills should consider the point of view of all people, of Ministers, of objectors to the Bill and of people who are there to promote legislation to their advantage. But the argument has been put forward here tonight that that privilege should be withdrawn from Committees considering such Bills, and that by an Act of Parliament the 1948 code should be substituted.
Be that as it may, it might be desirable for the Minister now to take the initiative of amending the 1933 Act and bringing it more into keeping with the standard of modern conditions. I wish to say, however, that it has been understood that the South Shields Bill would be the Measure on which each other Bill would hang. The South Shields Bill and the Sunderland Bill were taken together, and it was agreed in Committee that whatever applied in the South Shields Bill in the case of the Clause we are now discussing would automatically apply to the Sunderland Bill. That was accepted by all parties. The fact that the Sunderland Bill preceded the South Shields Bill in receiving its Third Reading, and has gone to another place for consideration, does not alter the position very much.
The situation now is that whatever happens in this House tonight in respect of Clause 36 of the South Shields Extention Bill will also apply, by means of amendment in another place, to the Sunderland Bill and other Bills which are hanging on the decision in this case. My argument does not concern whether or not the Minister has conducted himself in this matter with the necessary Parliamentary decorum but whether the conditions which we shall apply tonight to local government officers in Clause 36 of this Bill are equitable, just and reasonable. Because of that, I support the proposed new Clause.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Odey: In rising to oppose the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill, I wish first to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter), who was Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill upstairs. The opposition to this Clause arises on two grounds. The first concerns the manner in which it was


introduced or in which it was attempted to introduce it, by a side door, so to speak, in a Private Bill Committee. As the hon. Member for Doncaster has said, that Committee felt that it was not a question which the Committee should ever have been called upon to decide. They felt that it was a matter which should be considered on the Floor of the House. We are, therefore, considering the matter this evening, and the Minister is attempting to do on the Floor of the House what he endeavoured to do before the Committee upstairs.
Why is it that the opposition still persists? Surely the reason is that the time has come when this House should object to an attempt on the part of any Minister to substitute any regulations for an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who moved the new Clause, argued that from the point of view of law regulations have equal force with the provisions of any Act. He did not remind the House that when those regulations came before the House in the last Parliament they were considered for a matter of half an hour.

Mr. Blenkinsop: That is not true; the hon. Member should not say that. There was quite a lengthy Debate. I know that it was at a late hour of the night, but that Debate certainly lasted very much longer than half an hour; it went on for over two hours.

Mr. Odey: I am not particularly concerned about whether it went on for a half-hour or for two hours. The fact remains that the House is well aware that no regulations receive that detailed consideration which is given to a Bill in Committee upstairs. We say to the Minister that we are not here tonight particularly to defend the 1933 Act but to ask why the Minister cannot bring forward a Bill to amend the Act, if it needs amendment, and put the whole thing on a proper basis. It is no object of mine to defend the 1933 Act, but there have been criticisms of that Act on account of certain cases of compensation which have arisen. These cases have been grossly exaggerated. They mainly arose where there were certain agreements which enabled the people concerned to claim more compensation than we should regard as right and proper today.
When I listened to the evidence that was brought forward by the National Association of Local Government Officers before the Committe upstairs, I felt—and I am sure all Members of the House will agree—that whatever might be said against the 1933 Act, there was a great deal to be said against the 1948 regulations; because it is not only the case that any local government officer who carried on any private work at all was debarred by the 1948 regulations from having any compensation whatever, but there were also provisions in the 1948 regulations which have weighed very heavily on local government officers.
There was a provision in the 1948 regulations that compensation was to be determined by the period that the claimant had held the office he was occupying at the time when he was still employed. There was a case in Newcastle of a clerk to a mental hospital committee, with 17 years' local government service, who had this period cut to two years because it was held that that was the length of time that he had held that particular appointment.
In another case, a clerk to a joint hospital board had his service cut from 36 years to 12 years on the technical point that he was not employed directly, although he was doing the same duties, by the board for the whole of the 36 years. These instances will, I am sure, convince the House that the 1948 regulations want very carefully looking into before they are used to supplant the 1933 Act.
In addition, under the 1933 Act, there was in the case of a dispute the right of appeal to the Minister and there could also be an appeal to the courts. Under the 1948 regulations there were set up 10 to 12 appeal tribunals, which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members, and the trouble with these appeal tribunals is that on the cases that go to them there is no uniformity of decision. There was a case of a legal officer of N.A.L.G.O. who went to Edinburgh to complete a case. He had to go there on two occasions. On the second occasion a point arose which he had already argued on his first visit. He therefore said to the chairman, "I do not propose to make any submission in this case"; but it was a different chairman, and the new chairman informed him that


that same tribunal was in no way bound by its previous decisions.
I have had 25 years' experience of industrial management and I know—and hon. Members will agree with me—that there is nothing that creates more heartburning and irritation than to have similar men in different parts of the country doing the same work and getting different treatment.

Mr. Pannell: Is it not a fact that these tribunals are trying to judge on the merits of each case?

Mr. Odey: I agree that they are endeavouring to settle on the merits of each case, but there is no uniform code which they are able to follow, and even when they have an example in front of them, they obviously, from the case I have cited, are not following it. The fact remains that this whole system of the appeal tribunal is not giving satisfaction to local government officers. That is the main point and it is a grave defect of the 1948 regulations that that should be so. We who oppose this Bill say to the House, first and foremost, that if there is something wrong with the 1933 Act, the Government should amend it.
The Government have not a big legislative programme in front of them. When they have got rid of allotments and mid-wives, perhaps they can turn their attention to local government officers. Since 1944, the Government have taken over great powers of central government in matters like education, transport and public health, and the enactments of this House are, in fact, carried out by these local government officers, who are the most loyal body of men in the country. Surely to goodness they are entitled to receive from this House fair, just and proper treatment; and, in our submission, that uniformity of treatment which is the very essence of proper treatment can only be achieved by cutting out all these anomalies, by cutting out the circumstances whereby in a Private Bill the 1933 Act may apply or in rural district councils the 1948 Regulations may be in operation. Make it uniform, and I submit that it can only be made uniform by an Amendment of the 1933 Act.

Mr. MacColl: I am not clear about this argument. The loyal officers to whom he refers as operating nationalised in-

dustries are already covered under the 1948 code. He is seeking to preserve these differences. I cannot understand why he is arguing for a uniform code, when one already exists. He may not like it in detail but that does not matter. Parliament has approved it as a uniform code for local government officers.

Mr. Odey: The fact remains that there were many local government officers taken over at the time when these various industries were nationalised, and it is the whole of my case that the regulations which govern their compensation should be the same in both cases. We do not want the 1933 Act and the 1948 regulations. The proper thing to do is to amend the 1933 Act.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Pannell: I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey). Throughout the years, whether tribunals have tried cases of conscientious objectors, matters of compensation in cases such as this, or the delinquencies which doctors commit from time to time, there are local committees who attempt to assess the merits of each case. After 20 years in local government—

Dr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman might add, for the sake of accuracy, that the final decision is reached by a central committee.

Mr. Pannell: I take it, of course, that the hon. Member is referring to the doctors, who always want to be above the law.

Dr. Hill: The hon. Member specifically quoted doctors as an example in support of his case. I proved him inaccurate, and he responded by suggesting that doctors desire to be different. I suggest that he is a little less than fair in his argument.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member has had enough experience of this sort of thing not to be quite so sensitive. I could not possibly match his radio broadcast during the General Election, but there need not be so much sensitiveness now on his part when I talk about the delinquencies of doctors.
We are talking about the matter of local tribunals, which are not so local, there being 12 of them in different parts of the country. They will start with


reasonable and responsible people, and they will be guided in the main by the code itself. They will attempt to mete out justice, and if there is a different chairman from time to time, the new chairman will not, any more than a county court judge, be guided other than by submissions. We all know this kind of procedure in connection with evictions and other matters. The merits of the case will have to enter into it.
It has been the particular case of N.A.L.G.O. that they do not want uniformity. They want, not a centralised bureaucracy but local government broken down throughout the country. Who has raved more about central government? This is an extraordinary plea being put forward by self-interested Members opposite.

Mr. Hutchinson: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that the criticism that is being made against these tribunals is that they put different interpretations upon the same regulations? It is that lack of uniformity which is the point at issue.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and learned Member comes from a profession which puts a different interpretation on every sentence I make. I listened to him very carefully, and it does not lie in his mouth to criticise.
The argument so far has been about the interpretation of this 1948 code and the way the Minister has done it, but I will leave the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to that, because it is outside my knowledge as a back bencher, as a new Member of the House and as one who did not take part in the proceedings upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Obviously."] I have not, at least, brought knowledge to this Debate garnered at a few minutes to 12 from my local branch of N.A.L.G.O. I bring the knowledge of experience of local government for over 20 years. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that we are going to create in these days a privileged class of society. One can appreciate the argument, having negotiated in the trade union sense for the "most favourable" clause to be left in agreements.
The fact is that 12 Bills have passed through this House with the 1948 code. All the great nationalised undertakings

have been brought in, and it has been open to pray against the code if Members wished to do a reasonable job as Members of the Opposition. It will be generally agreed by those who know anything about local government that we are now having, after a good number of years, the first of a spate of this type of Bills. It would be unreasonable, therefore, to use the 1933 code, bearing in mind what has been done in the nationalised industries and the integration of many local government services into those undertakings.
I ask Members not to worry themselves too much as to whether this Bill should be accepted or not. I suggest that these are pedantic and legalistic arguments and that we ought to get down to the code itself. I ask the House to give a verdict tonight in the sense that this Bill fulfils the needs of the times in the best traditions of local government. I ask the House not to listen to special pleadings which will only make future legislation extremely awkward and ambiguous.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Lionel Heald: As I understand it, the question before the House is whether this Bill should be amended at the behest of two hon. Members who are really the secret agents of the Minister of Health. I ask the House to reject this Clause on three grounds.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about secret agents. Can we speak of agents of the National Association of Local Government Officers?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Member can speak about them as much as he likes, but I am not an agent of the National Association of whatever he called it. I do not know what it stands for.
I was asking the House to reject this Clause on three grounds. The first is that the introduction of this Clause into the Bill, which contains the 1933 code at the request of the promoters, does, in fact, cause an injustice to a number of people. The second reason is on the basis of a constitutional objection. The third reason is as a condemnation of the administrative methods and behaviour of the Government.
On the first matter, I will not enlarge upon what has already been said on this


subject except to say, in reply to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), that far from removing anomalies this Clause will create them; it will actually deprive people who were part-time officers, and who had a right to be considered for compensation under a Clause in the Bill as it stands now, from being considered at all. That is an unfair thing to do in the circumstances, unless it can be justified very clearly.
The second reason I gave was a constitutional reason. The 1933 Act was the result of a working out for a number of years of a system of compensation that was first put forward as long ago as the Local Government Act. 1888. What is sought to be done is to substitute for that what was done by the Minister of Health in statutory regulations applied by virtue of the 1948 Act, the 1948 Local Government Act being limited to very specific purposes. The fact is that the Minister of Health has used those regulations for the purpose of applying it to the nationalised industries. If local government officers are to be treated on the same basis as the nationalised industries, that is a very serious matter which ought to be decided by the House in the proper way, and not by the hole-and-corner methods adopted in this case. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite seem to find this very amusing, but some of us are interested in these constitutional matters.
That brings me to the third reason. It has been pointed out that a number of Bills have gone through in one form or another. When the Boundary Commission was dissolved in 1949, the 1933 method was adopted, and so on and so forth. Last week the House passed the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, Clause 31 of which incorporated the 1933 provisions. The Parliamentary Secretary intervened in that Debate, as, no doubt, he will intervene again this evening, and said this:
We advise the House … that in view of the very careful consideration it has had, it should be given its Third Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1421.]

Mr. Blenkinsop: As I said before, it was clearly understood upstairs that the decision upon this Bill will affect the Wolverhampton Bill, and it is a little naive of hon. Members to put the matter

in this form, when that was clearly understood.

Mr. Heald: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for using such a word as "naive," but I thought it might be just as well to say that there was no agreement to which I was party; I never heard of it and I voted in the Division Lobby. The Parliamentary Secretary voted in favour of that Bill, so did the Attorney-General, so did the Solicitor-General, so did the hon. Member for Widnes, so did the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths), and so did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who surely never has South Shields far from his heart. If for nothing else, this is an example of administrative incompetence and an insult to this House. The Minister of Health wishes to alter the whole basis of compensation in the country but has not got the courage to argue the thing himself. He sends his Parliamentary Secretary and a few others to the House to do it for him. I ask the House to reject this Clause.

8.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I find it very interesting that in this discussion we should have had many different points of view. For example, we have had the point of view put by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter). He bases his objection on the method adopted by my hon. Friend in introducing this Clause for discussion. That appears to be the point of view of many hon. Members opposite.
The majority of the Members who have spoken so far have based their objection to this Clause on grounds of procedure rather than on the grounds of the contents of the Clause itself, or of the 1948 code, which we are seeking to introduce in replacement of the 1933 code. There are a few hon. Members who have intimated that they feel that, on balance, the 1933 code is better, but they have been careful not to go into any detail about it. I think I can quite fairly assume that the main argument this evening has been on the question of the procedure used and that it is not really contended by any hon. Member that the 1933 code is now suitable for our modern conditions. Let me deal first with the point that has been raised both by my hon. Friend the Mem-


ber for Doncaster and by other hon. Members opposite about the procedure adopted in this case.
I suggest that the procedure adopted is completely normal for this House, and that, although several hon. Members appear to wish to dodge this issue, this is not a new matter. In point of fact, we are not bringing this forward as a new principle for discussion in this House. This has been discussed in the House before in the form in which it related to the National Health Service which not only, let it be remembered, effected a transfer out of local government service altogether, but caused a large number of transfers from one part of local government service to another. That is closely analogous to the sort of change that might conceivably arise under boundary revision Bills. What is more, among other Statutes to which have been applied the 1948 code, we have a whole series of Measures, not only dealing with nationalisation, but a great variety, including the Local Government Act, 1948, which related, as hon. Members are aware, particularly to rating officers.
It is far from being true that this proposal introduces to the House for the first time some completely new principle. That is utterly wrong. The principle was, I suggest, accepted by the House. Objections were made, and so were suggestions for alteration, but the new code was clearly accepted by the House after Debate. If hon. Members opposite think that there should have been longer discussion, well, it was surely within the opportunity of hon. Members at that time to decide whether they would continue the Debate and vote in any way upon it, or not. There was full opportunity for discussion in the House. What is more, there has been a series of opportunities for the House to discuss the matter, had hon. Members so desired, by the Prayer procedure when other regulations were submitted. In fact, those opportunities were not taken.

Mr. Wakefield: Did the regulations come before the House in a form in which they were subject to amendment or only in a form in which they were subject to annulment?

Mr. Blenkinsop: They did not come before the House in a form in which they

were capable of amendment. That is perfectly true, but the suggestion is being made that a new principle is being raised before the House by what is called a "back-door" method. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is utterly and absolutely untrue.

Colonel Clarke: Does the Minister really consider that the Prayer procedure is equivalent, in fairness to the House for purposes of discussion, to the way in which the 1933 Bill was discussed? He knows that no Amendments are possible and that the matter comes on late. It is totally unfair to say that it was properly discussed in this House.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am mentioning that there was the opportunity, had hon. Members so desired, to raise the matter by the Prayer procedure, but the particular case on which the discussion took place in the House was on an affirmative Resolution, which gave full opportunity for discussion. The point I am dealing with is the argument that this is a wholly new principle, and that the House has not had an opportunity of dealing with it. I say that the principle has been fully discussed, and that the House has had the opportunity of dealing with it. It is rubbish to suggest that, having adopted the principle, it is not normal procedure to move to insert it in these Bills coming before us today.
I must here refer to the quite fantastic remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Mr. Heald) who sought to suggest that just because there was agreement for the convenience of Members of the House that this matter should be raised upon this particular Bill, we were, therefore, in some way guilty of allowing another Bill to go through without this particular Amendment.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The position is this. This matter was not raised on the Committee stage of the Wolverhampton Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary recommended the Wolverhampton Bill to this House without reservation on Third Reading. The Wolverhampton Bill has left this House ahead of the South Shields Bill. Why did not the Parliamentary Secretary in all honesty say that he recommended the Bill with the exception of Clause 31?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Really, the hon. Member is almost as childish on this issue as his hon. and learned Friend. This is the perfectly normal procedure of this House, and it is quite fantastic for hon. Members to make this sort of complaint. I have already made it perfectly clear that in another place they have already accepted in two particular Bills which started in that House the 1948 code, and it is natural that they should desire to hear expressed the point of view of this House before proceeding further with the other Bills with which we have been dealing. It is surely quite fantastic to suggest that we should raise this matter on each single Bill instead of adopting the perfectly normal procedure which has been current in this House for a long time, as hon. Members know perfectly well, of raising it on one particular Bill. It is exactly the same principle which is at stake, and it would have been quite fantastic to have brought forward each separate Bill for discussion of this item.

Mr. Alport: Mr. Alport (Colchester) rose—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I have given way a reasonable number of times, and I do not really see that the repetition of the same point gets us very far.

Mr. Alport: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the Parliamentary Secretary to make a statement in regard to matters which took place upstairs without giving any ground for the assertion he made? You will remember that earlier, in his intervention in the Debate, he said that the problem with which we are dealing at the moment was well known to the Committee. I have heard no reference to that in his speech, nor has there been any evidence produced by him.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not think there is any objection to that because the minutes and report of the Committee are on record and are available to all hon. Members

Mr. Alport: Mr. Alport rose—

Mr. Blenkinsop: I understand that the hon Member is not raising a further point of order.
It was for that reason—that the matter of principle had already been discussed in this House and that the same issue could have been discussed on many occa-

sions—that the normal procedure was followed of proposing the introduction of this Clause in the Bill when it was upstairs. It was only when N.A.L.G.O. petitioned against the alteration that we knew they were opposing this proposal. As far as we knew, they had accepted this principle after the discussions that had taken place previously, as indeed they had. I am not saying that they welcomed it—far from it—but there had been long discussions upon it on the other Bills that we had had before us in the House, and we understood that they accepted the principle for general application.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? It is a matter of some importance to the procedure of this House. The Parliamentary Secretary has been accused by hon. Members on this side of a lack of candour, to say the least of it, in his speech on the Wolverhampton Bill in not mentioning this fact when we discussed it here. I was present, and I confirm to the best of my recollection that he did not, but he now says it was understood upstairs in the Committee—to which most of us have not had access or have not read the proceedings—that this question would be raised on the South Shields Bill. I think we are entitled to ask that the hon. Gentleman should substantiate that statement. One of my hon. Friends behind me has doubted that statement from his own recollection. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have stated that the proceedings are on record, and we are entitled to ask that the Parliamentary Secretary should justify the remarks and quote the page and the column in HANSARD in which this alleged statement was made. Otherwise we are bound to assume that he has no justification for the statement he made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Hon. Members are making a great deal out of a very little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Certainly. If there are quite a number of Private Bills coming forward on which precisely the same point arises, it is obviously desirable that the matter should be discussed on one and not necessarily on each.

Mr. Hudson: But on the important point affecting the veracity of the hon. Gentleman, he has made a specific statement to this House within the recollection


of all of us. His veracity has been questioned. We say he ought to substantiate his statement or else withdraw it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As I say, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to create a certain amount of heat in this Debate—

Mr. Hudson: No, I am not.

Mr. Blenkinsop: —and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advises me that he is succeeding, whether he is trying or not. The simple point is that it was understood that in all these Bills—

Mr. Hudson: That is a very different statement.

Mr. Blenkinsop: —that in all these Bills which require a compensation Clause we would take the decision that was reached on this Bill as the guiding factor in the decisions that might be come to on them. It is quite absurd for hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite to raise a storm on this perfectly natural and desirable procedure. Otherwise, it would mean that we should be raising this same issue on a series of separate Bills.

Mr. Hudson: Mr. Hudson rose—

Mr. Blenkinsop: No.

Mr. Hudson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I venture with all humility to suggest to you that this is treating the House with a lack of candour. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a statement. He has been challenged by this side of the House. We say the statement has no truth in it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I find that the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a long experience of this House, is really attempting to introduce a point of order which hardly seems to be a point of order at all. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that he has had much longer experience at this Box than I have. Certainly, he has, and do not we all know it? It is not, indeed, a happy experience.
Let me now get back to the issue we are discussing here. It has been alleged, and this is the main argument of hon. Members opposite, as indeed it is the main argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, that this has been introduced in a back-stage way. My contention is that, so far from that being true,

the matter has been fully discussed in this House already, that there has been ample opportunity for discussion of the principle on a whole series of different occasions, and that therefore the method adopted of introducing this new Clause is a perfectly normal and natural one.
The next main point raised was that of the creation of anomalies. It has been said by many hon. Members—and quite rightly and fairly—that it is undesirable to have in operation two different codes for different members of local government staffs doing similar types of work. We quite agree that it is desirable that we should establish a single code and that that code should be applicable to our modern times. Hon. Members opposite, so far as I can find out, seem to suggest that we should continue to use the 1933 code, which even they will admit is not in tune with our present situation, and which in many ways can only mean a considerable waste of public money.
One would have thought that hon. Members opposite would have taken note of that fact. They complain in this House of the importance of keeping a close check on public expenditure, but when we suggest in this new Clause that we should adopt a procedure which will effect a much closer check and is much more in tune with our economic needs today, we find them opposing us. I can only suggest that it is because they feel that they have an opportunity of gaining a little extra support from one organisation or another. [Interruption.] It is quite obvious. In fact, were we to do what hon. Members opposite suggest, were we to accept the 1933 code in this Bill, it would certainly mean that we would create a great number of new anomalies, for the simple reason that, over the major field of the local government service, the 1948 code is in operation.
Therefore, if we were now to accept the 1933 code in this Bill, although it is perfectly true that very few, if any, officers are likely to be affected, they would be in clear contrast to the position of their brother officers in other fields. It is therefore highly desirable, in order to secure just that uniformity which hon. Members opposite are claiming we should have, that we should have introduced the 1948 code in this small remaining field, and it is, indeed, a very small field. I agree


that it is desirable in future, as soon as it becomes practicable to bring forward proposals for reform in local government, that we should introduce a new and revised modern procedure for the 1933 code, and that, I am quite sure, we shall do as soon as opportunity offers.
I am asked why we did not take the opportunity of the 1949 Dissolution Bill, but the intention and scope of that Bill was a very narrow one. It was designed merely to dissolve the Local Government Boundary Commission and restore the position that previously had been in existence. In fact, it would require considerable amendment to the 1933 Act to have made it apply to the type of Bill with which we are now dealing. To deal with the extensions of county boroughs, which are not normally covered by the 1933 Act, would have required a major amendment of the 1933 Act, which was certainly not within the intention of the Government when they produced the Bill. Of course, there was no opportunity for this House to consider the principle on this issue when that Bill was under consideration.
The main issue before the House is whether it is right or wrong to adopt a code of compensation for local government officers that is broadly fair for the officers themselves and also—and this is a vital matter—fair for the country as a whole. We suggest that, although the 1933 code might have been suitable for the times of depression and unemployment that were the natural counterpart of the Governments of that day, it is not the natural code for a Government which is succeeding in maintaining full employment in this country.
It is vital for this country that there should be no disincentive to any working man, to any employee of a local authority, to seek alternative employment, whether it be in the public field or the private field, and therefore I suggest that the 1933 code is not only out of date for our present needs, but is positively dangerous in its operation as it might affect our main economic needs today. Therefore, this House must face the fact that my hon. Friend is proposing to introduce a new Clause which brings these Bills into line with our general practice and general procedure. Were we to reject this Clause, we would bring about a very large number of serious anomalies and

might indeed set back the economic recovery of which we are all so proud.

Mr. Odey: May I ask the hon. Gentleman this question? If his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is dissatisfied with the 1933 Act, why does he not bring in a Measure to amend it? Could I have an answer?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think there is any necessity for a further answer. I have already answered the hon. Member by saying that as soon as practicable, we shall undoubtedly bring forward amending legislation on local government and will need to include this revised code, but that does not mean that we shall not take action now in the interim.

8.59 p.m.

Dr. Hill: It seemed to me, as I listened to the admirably fair and comprehensive speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter), that one of the strongest points he made was the point over which the Parliamentary Secretary passed all too lightly. In November last the Government had their opportunity of embodying the principles of the 1948 regulations in the boundary dissolution legislation. Those regulations had been in existence and in operation for some 16 months then and it is not to be wondered at that the failure of the Government to deal with that question then has made the public and the House wonder what, in fact, were the genuine intentions of the Government.
I recall some weeks ago that when I was speaking in the House in support of a piece of legislation calculated to raise the status of a borough, the substance of the Minister's reply was that to do things by piecemeal legislation would result in chaos. Yet that is precisely the method which it is proposed to follow now.
I was impressed when I first heard the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) argue the case for uniformity, but does this create uniformity? Not a bit of it. It means that where a county officer suffers a loss of office because a county borough has extended its boundaries he will be compensated on one formula; but if he suffers loss of office because a district council has extended its boundaries he is compensated on an entirely different formula. It seems to me that the main issue before the House is not


the comparison of the two codes. I confess that I find arguments in support of some of the changes and would wish to criticise others. But the real issue is whether it is right to modify a code which has been in operation for 17 years, and which will still be in operation for county districts.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The 1933 code is not in operation in the case of the majority of local government officers.

Dr. Hill: I made my contention, on which I insist, that so far as a compensation issue arises as a result of a review of county districts—and that issue will soon be upon us—the 1933 code will cover their compensation. All we are doing, if we accept this new Clause, is to introduce a new code of compensation for officers who are displaced under certain circumstances, leaving the old code to apply to officers who are displaced under different circumstances.
I accept the argument for uniformity, but I suggest that the right and proper way to deal with it is by a general Bill presented to this House fairly and uniformly. To deal with it in this piecemeal fashion is not to create uniformity, but to create such anomalies as will gravely disturb local government servants. I hope that the House will reject this proposal and insist, not on one or other code or consideration of criteria, but on a proposal of a uniform and comprehensive character being submitted to the House for discussion and decision after full consideration.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: The conventions of this House demand that I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a local government officer, and as such may be indirectly affected by the subject matter of this Debate. I do not wish to pursue the argument as to the respective merits of the 1933 and the 1948 codes. I think that the main objection to the new Clause is that it introduced a discussion, or a possible discussion, on the merits of these codes at an inopportune moment. If the merits of the codes are to be discussed they should be considered in the House on a general Bill, and not incidentally to a Private Bill promoted in this way.
I wish, however, to make one comment on the discussion, namely about the various interpretations placed on the 1948 code by 12 different tribunals. It is true that the 1948 code is a uniform code which applies to all local government officers who come under the 1948 Act, but there is no appeal to a central authority against the decision of each of these tribunals. With the 1933 code it is for the Minister to decide what is the correct interpretation to be placed upon it and, thereby, there is a uniform interpretation as to the precise meaning of that code. In the case of the 1948 code, however, there is no uniform interpretation. That, I think, is the reply to one of the earlier speakers on this side of the House.
The fact that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken a certain line on this matter is causing considerable embarrassment to those of us on this side of the House. I ask that those who take the view that this new Clause should not be supported should not seek to make this into a party matter. Some of the arguments advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite are those to which we on this side, who take the same view as myself, could not possibly subscribe. This, indeed, is the greatest reason to do the right thing for the wrong reason. Some hon. Members are coming to the right conclusion on this matter, but for the wrong reasons.
My objection is to the method by which the new Clause has been introduced. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that this is not a new principle and that it is one which has been discussed in various Bills considered by the House. He cited certain of the nationalisation Acts and, in particular, the Local Government Act, 1948. That is, in part, true, but there is a vast difference between the general code embodied in the Local Government Act, 1933—a code which is applicable to all local government officers adversely affected by extensions—and a code which is specific to certain officers who are affected by the nationalisation Acts. The code of 1948 was designed to apply to a particular kind of officer—those officers who were specially affected by the 1948 Act and who, in the main, are officers who were dealing with rating matters. The 1933 code is of general application. The subsequent codes were for specific cases.


That is a material matter which the House should consider.
My second point is that it is undesirable that the same type of officer should be subjected to two different codes of compensation. That is the gravamen of the case against the new Clause. It is undesirable that there should be two codes of compensation for the same body of officers. Those officers adversely affected by extensions, by the review of county districts under the 1933 Act, will be compensated under the 1933 code. Those who are affected by county borough extensions by Private Bill, will be compensated, if this Clause is adopted, under the 1948 Act. It is undesirable, in my view, that the same body of local government employees should be subjected to two different types of compensation Clauses.

Mr. MacColl: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said, in 1951 there may be opportunities for further consideration of the question of anybody who is affected by an alteration of boundary under the 1933 Act. At the moment there are no such opportunities. There may be two people working in the same town planning office; one of them may be affected because the town planning powers have been transferred, and the other may be affected by boundary alterations. Those people, surely, would come under the same Clause.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: With great respect to my hon. Friend, the review orders which will be made by county councils under the 1933 Act can be made at any time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Not until 1951, even under the recent Act.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the 1949 dissolution Act. In other words, in six months' time county councils will be considering the making of new orders to review their county districts.
The point I am making is that in six months' time those officers will be subjected to different codes of compensation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: They are not at present.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: But they are. When an order is made—and an order can be made in six months' time under the

1933 Act—they will be subjected to two different codes of compensation, and I suggest that that is an undesirable state of the law. If I may use a phrase with which my right hon. Friend the Minister if Health is very familiar, it creates a "statutory dichotomy", which is a most unfortunate state of affairs.
I want to make it plain that I do not think that the 1933 code is perfect. Some of the criticism which has been levelled against it, particularly that in view of the change of economic circumstances, has very great force, and I think that the time has come for the House to consider those points. When the House does come to consider the respective merits of the 1933 and 1948 codes, however, and legislates upon a new code, then that should be done by an Act and not by way of statutor regulations.
Hon. Members are aware of the restraint on discussion by the procedure in this House if the matter is one which is the subject of an affirmative or negative resolution upon a statutory regulation. There may be certain parts of the code which are good and which should find approval, but there may be other parts which are not so good and which require amendment. It is unfortunate that the procedure by way of statutory regulations prevents the House from making any amendment to the draft code and therefore I suggest that for those reasons the House should not accept the new Clause.

9.13 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I sat here for three hours last Thursday hoping that this Bill would come on for discussion. I heard the earlier part of tonight's discussion, but as I required some alimentation, I missed a substantial part of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. When I came back into the House he was saying "we" and I wondered to whom the "we" referred, whether it was to the two hon. Members whose names appear on the Order Paper as the mover and supporter of the new Clause or whether he meant the Ministry of Health.
This is a very strange business. A Bill is brought in containing a certain code of compensation; the Minister of Health submits to the Committee upstairs a memorandum suggesting, not what was in the Bill, but what is in the new Clause;


and four hon. Members upstairs consider it. They are helped by counsel, witnesses and all the rest and they turn down the proposal of the Minister of Health by a majority of three to one.
It is not the Minister of Health who is proposing the Clause tonight. He has got hold of two other hon. Members to do it. Why has not the Parliamentary Secretary put his name to the Clause, because we know where it comes from? It does not come from the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who moved it. He did not draft it; I do not think that he thought of it. The thought came not from the Parliamentary Secretary but from the absent Minister. I am amazed that when there is an issue of this kind the Minister is not present to look after his bit of what I think is rather dirty work. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary has the support of the Home Secretary, who represents the offending borough.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I greatly resent the borough being called "offending" in this matter. It is the innocent victim of this discussion.

Sir H. Williams: I always regarded the Home Secretary, to use a friendly phrase, as a rather "fly" right hon. Gentleman, and for once he has risen. He has declared that the borough is not an offender. In other words, the borough was right in its original intention and it is his colleague the Minister of Health who is trying to corrupt the borough.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) gave the borough's view about this when he said, as was said upstairs, that the borough council itself stands outside the conflict and is willing to accept whichever Clause is preferred by the House.

Sir H. Williams: Do I understand that the county borough of South Shields, which is represented with such great distinction by the Home Secretary, has not got a mind? Strangely enough, every other county borough has a mind.
I only learnt about this controversy through a conversation with an hon. Member who served on the Committee. Probably most hon. Members had not

heard about it until we received communications from a variety of people putting forward what they regarded as legitimate claims. I have had communications from two or three bodies representing officials who may be affected by this, and all of them think that they will be worse off. The hon. Member for Widnes said that he was moving the Clause in the interest of economy. He admitted that the Clause would put officials in a worse position than they would be under the 1933 code. Have I cast another fly?

Mr. MacColl: What I suggested was that it would put in a worse position local government officers who do not require assistance, but would put in a better position local government officers who need compensation because they have suffered.

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member has missed my point. I was quoting the effect on public expenditure. At one stage in his speech he said that he was speaking in that interest and that he thought that the Clause would cost the local authorities less money than the 1933 code would. Quite clearly, they would be worse off unless his words mean something different from their normal meaning.

Mr. MacColl: What I said was that, if under the 1933 code local government officers who already have good jobs are drawing a life pension, the local authority will be worse off than if it does not have to pay compensation to people of that kind. I did not suggest that the local authority would save money at the expense of people who needed help.

Sir H. Williams: That was not the point that I was making. The hon. Member said in general terms that his Clause would save money for the local authorities. Tomorrow, when he reads his speech in HANSARD—if he likes he can read it tonight—he will find that that is what he said. His two interventions have not cleared up the point to which I directed attention, that he was moving the Clause in the interest of economy in public expenditure, now so ardently desired at the Ministry of Health—a rather late conversion. I think it was last Wednesday night that we had three Private Bills down—the British Transport Commission Bill, the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill and this one. This Bill


should have come up the same night, but hon. Members will recollect that the proceedings were rather prolonged, and we ran to 10 o'clock on the Wolverhampton Bill.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member will agree that this was intended to be dealt with on the same night. If so, that kicks the legs away from one of his colleagues who sees in this a belated act of treachery by the Minister.

Sir H. Williams: There were three Orders down—the British Transport Commission Bill, the Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, to which there were certain Amendments, and this Bill, and this Clause was on the Order Paper. I happen to have some interest in all three. I took part in the Wolverhampton Bill Debate, and I had intended to take part in the Debate on this Bill, but it was not reached. If it had been reached we would have had the interesting situation that the House would have agreed to the Wolverhampton Bill, unanimously as they did on Third Reading [HON. MEMBERS: "Not unanimously."]. I forgot that there was the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), who was not opposing the Bill on anything to do with this Clause but who was opposing it because he thought it was going to take the county of Stafford into the borough of Wolverhampton.
Nobody said a word about this code on the Wolverhampton Bill. The hon. Member for Widnes did not put this Clause down on that Bill because they were "dozey" at the Ministry of Health. They had not spotted that this was in the Wolverhampton Bill. I think four Bills have gone through in this Session with the 1933 code in them, and the Ministry only woke up when they got to South Shields—I suppose because the Home Secretary had been on their track.

Mr. MacColl: I am not arguing the merits of whether it should or should not be in the Wolverhampton Bill. The hon. Member suggested some people were asleep. In fact I did notice it, and I inquired what the position was in regard to the Wolverhampton Bill. I was given precisely the same information as that now given to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, the hon. Member's flight of fancy has been "grounded."

Sir H. Williams: The hon. Member is now contending that he was awake when the Minister of Health was asleep. That does not surprise me in the least. In fact they have both gone from the Chamber now. We have lost the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
This is rather a scandal. We have a procedure for Private Bill legislation. The Ministry do, before the Committee, very much what outside people do, except that they have a greater facility. They send a memorandum to the Committee; other persons have to petition. But upstairs-they are in very much the same position. The Minister petitions that the Bill should be altered on the lines of this Clause. The Committee upstairs turn it down. Some people know all about the difference between the 1933 code and the 1948 code. I do not. All I do know is that all the people likely to be affected prefer the 1933 to the 1948 code; and nobody has replied to that point. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Nobody that I heard. I understand that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Middle-ton) wishes to give tongue on this subject. As I do not want to take more than my fair share of the time of the Committee between now and 10 o'clock, I will give her an opportunity to say her piece.

Mrs. Middleton: I have no piece to say.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. John Cooper: I was hoping to be called in this Debate quite early, because I feel this is a very important matter indeed, but after the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Gunter) had spoken, I felt it would be wrong to repeat all that he had said so well and so clearly.
This Bill first came to my attention when I saw the recommendation of the Committee. I submit to the House that it is rather unusual for a Committee to receive a recommendation from a Minister and then to come to a finding as follows:
That the recommendation be not adopted, the Committee being of the opinion that the question was one of general policy which it was for the House to decide.
I have risen at this stage because, having gone into the case very carefully and having listened to the Debate very carefully, I am more than ever convinced that this Amendment should be rejected


I will give my reasons very briefly. From time to time tonight, reference has been made to the merits of the two codes—the code under the 1933 Act and the code under the 1948 Act; but I think it has been apparent that, although we have been debating the subject since seven o'clock, on such a fundamental principle the time which has been available has not been sufficient for us to take such an important decision. I think the House would agree with that contention.
Frankly, I do not think the House is being treated fairly. Some of the answers which have been given to questions indicate clearly how unfairly we are being treated. Let me illustrate that. It has been made abundantly clear by the Parliamentary Secretary that if this new Clause is agreed to, it will be a precedent as far as borough extensions are concerned. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary will deny that. Yet when an hon. Member suggested, very properly I submit, that if there is something wrong with the 1933 code, which has governed exclusively the position of local government officers—

Mr. Blenkinsop: It is just that which we contend is not the case. We insist that the great majority of local government officers are today covered by the 1948 code.

Mr. Odey: They do not think so themselves.

Mr. Cooper: That only means that there has been a transfer of services from local government into services which are completely new in their functions.

Mr. Blenkinsop: No.

Mr. Cooper: In local government, as such, the 1933 code operates. It took 40 years of negotiations to build up the code and it operated up to the time the Boundary Commission was established. When the Boundary Commission was suspended, it was made quite clear that it would operate again.
Let me revert to the answer given when it was suggested that if there was something wrong with the 1933 code, then we should have it amended by a general Act, giving the House an opportunity to go into detail on the respective codes. The answer was, "When we come to local government reorganisation in a year or two, we can take such a step." But that

was no answer at all because if this Clause is accepted and becomes a precedent, then the 1933 code will die out. If this Clause is carried, there will be no opportunity for this House to deal fully with the 1933 code.
This is not a party matter in any sense. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes."] Well, for some people everything is a party matter. This is the matter of a code which has stood the test of time and has been recognised by all parties for many years. The interesting thing is that there are very few people involved, or likely on county borough extensions to lose office or lose emoluments. I mention that to show that there is no real urgency to try, by a backdoor method, to bring in the 1948 code where the 1933 code has always prevailed. I hope that the House will have an opportunity of carefully comparing the merits of the two codes, and I suggest that the only way that we can do that is by rejecting the new Clause and leaving this to be done by a general amendment of the Act.

9.31 p.m.

Sir William Darling: At seven o'clock, when this Debate began, I thought that it was a relatively unimportant matter. I have now come to the conclusion, having heard the greater part of the Debate, that it is a very important matter. To the Parliamentary Secretary this is a small matter dealing with a few anomalies. If his argument is correct, why do this thing which both sides of the House think undesirable? Would it not be better to wait? The right thing to do surely is to rectify this, not by regulation but by legislation.
I know nothing except in a general way about the 1933 code; very few right hon. and hon. Members know very much about it, yet we are shortly to pass an opinion as to whether it is a more desirable code than the 1948 one. I suggest that there is a great deal behind this. There is known to some of us an important organisation known as the National Association of Local Government Officers. It suffers one great defect in the eyes of some that it is not affiliated to the Labour Party. For that reason, some think that this important organisation is not worth listening to. The National Association of Local Government Officers are not in favour of this new Clause. They favour legislation


by law and not by regulation, and it is because I favour legislation by law and not by regulation that I shall oppose the Clause. I suggest that the Motion should be withdrawn and that the House should have an opportunity of considering local

government legislation in the fullest possible degree.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 138.

Division No. 50.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Gilzean, A.
Moody, A. S.


Albu, A. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Allen, A. C. (Bosworlh)
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mort, D. L


Awbery, S. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Moyle, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Mulley, F. W


Bacon, Miss A
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Murray, J. D.


Balfour, A.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Nally, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Neal, H


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
O'Brien, T.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hannan, W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Benson, G.
Hardy, E A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Beswick, F
Hargreaves, A
Pannell, T. C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J.
Pargiter, G A


Blenkinsop, A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parker, J


Blyton, W. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Paton, J


Boardman, H
Herbison, Miss M
Pearson, A.


Booth, A.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Peart, T. F.


Bottomley, A. G
Hobson, C. R
Popplewell, E


Bowden, H. W.
Holman, P.
Porter, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Proctor, W. T


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hubbard, T.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Richards, R.


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Irving, W J. (Wood Green)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Carmichael, James
Janner, B.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Royle, C.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Chetwynd, G. R
Jeger, Dr. S. W (St. Pancras, S.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir H


Clunie, J.
Jenkins, R. H.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Coldrick, W.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J.


Collick, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Slater, J


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cook, T. F.
Keenan, W
Snow, J. W.


Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Kenyon, C
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F


Cove, W. G.
King, H. M
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Steele, T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Kinley, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D
Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.


Daggar, G
Lee, F. (Newton)
Sylvester, G. O.


Daines, P.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, A. W. J (West Ham, N.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Lindgren, G. S
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Longden, F. (Small Heard)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Deer, G.
McAllister, G
Thurtle, Ernest


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Diamond, J.
McGovern, J
Tomney, F.


Dodds, N. N.
Mclnnes, J.
Vernon, Maj W F


Donnelly, D.
Mack, J. D
Viant, S. P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Wallace, H W


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
West, D. G.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mainwaring, W. H
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Finch, H. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderfield, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Follick, M.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C
Wilkes, L.


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. j.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Messer, F.
Willey, F. T (Sunderland)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Moeran, E. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)




Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)
Woods, Rev. G. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)
Yates, V. F.
Mr. MacColl and Mr. Ewart.


Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Younger, Hon. Kenneth





NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Gunter, R. J
Osborne, C


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Harden, J. R. E.
Perkins, W. R. D


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hay, John
Powell, J. Enoch


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Baldwin, A E.
Heald, L. F.
Profumo, J. D.


Bamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Redmayne, M.


Bell, R. M.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Entry (Merioneth)


Bennett, R. F. B. (Gosport)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robson-Brown, W. (Esher)


Black, C. W
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hornsby-Smith, Mist P.
Roper, Sir H


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, G. R (St. Ives)
Ropner, Col. L.


Braine, B.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Russell, R. S.


Brooke, H, (Hampstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Butcher, H. W.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Smithers, Peter H. B. (Winchester)


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Snadden, W McN


Channon, H.
Jennings, R.
Soames, Capt C


Clarke, Col. R S. (East Grinstead)
Leather, E. H. C.
Storey, S.


Colegale, A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Cooper, J. (Deptford)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Teeling, William


Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
McAdden, S. J.
Thomas, J P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)


Crouch, R. F.
McKibbin, A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Cundiff, F. W.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turton, R. H.


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Davies, S. D. (Merthyr)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Vosper, D. F.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Donner, P. W.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, J. C. (Exeter)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarlhen)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Waltet
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Nabarro, G.
Wood, Hon. R.


Fort, R.
Nicholls, H.
York, C.


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Young, Sir A. S. L.


Gridley, Sir A.
Oakshott, H. D.



Grimond, J.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Mr. Odey and Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson.

Clause added to the Bill.

Amendment made to leave out Clause 36.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]—[King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.45 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: In view of the very important decision that has been taken tonight in changing one Clause for another, on a matter which excites very great public interest, we should not agree to the suspension of the Standing Order without which the Third Reading cannot be taken. I do not think that the Third Reading should be taken tonight. There ought to be an opportunity to discuss that

which we should be allowed to discuss on Third Reading, namely, matters which are now in the Bill. We have had a most strange statement made by a Minister tonight that if this Clause be put into the Bill then all the Bills containing Clauses like the one which we have left out will be altered when those Bills reach another place. That is a constitutional doctrine which excites—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the problem of all Private Bills. We are discussing one Bill, namely, the South Shields Extension Bill, and nothing else.

Sir H. Williams: I am trying to give reasons why we should not part with the South Shields Extension Bill because of the threat by a Minister of what would be done, presumably by him or his agents, in another place. I want an opportunity for the Bill to be discussed on Third


Reading and not late in the evening when, as we are all aware, these matters do not receive the publicity they get at an earlier hour in the evening. The Third Reading of this Bill ought to be taken at a time when we can discuss the matter in such a way that it will have the widest publicity.
We all know the difficulties under which newspapers are working and that very little that happens in this Chamber in the ordinary way is reported. It is therefore quite wrong that the Bill should receive its Third Reading tonight. It cannot receive its Third Reading unless the Motion to suspend the Standing Order, moved automatically and properly by the Chairman of Ways and Means, is acceded to. I am expressing the hope that this Motion will not be carried, in order that the Third Reading may be discussed at a later date.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I happen to be the South Shields representative in this House, and I make an appeal to the House to vote on the Third Reading tonight. The South Shields Corporation have had very bad luck with the Bill. Earlier in the Debate the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) called it the "offending" borough. When he said that I suggested that the borough was an innocent victim of the procedure. What has happened on this Bill is this: it is well known that in the promotion of Private Bills it is decided that one Bill shall be taken as that upon which a precedent shall be founded. For some reason or another, which I do not know, and which I do not think greatly concerns me or the House, this Bill was chosen.
It is true that some Bills have gone through to another place with the Clause that was in the Bill at the beginning of the evening. If the other place removes that Clause and substitutes the one we have put in tonight, those Bills will have to come back here for the Amendment to be accepted or rejected by this House. I suggest, therefore, that there will be ample opportunity, if it is the desire of any Member of the House, to have that Clause discussed when the Bills come back. If they do not come back, then the Clause which hon. Members opposite voted for tonight will be in those Bills, so that they will have no grievance. But should the other place substitute the Clause which we have substituted tonight,

the Bill must come back here for consideration of that Amendment. I suggest, therefore, that the rights of the House are fully safeguarded, and that this Bill might be given a Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Hutchinson: Notwithstanding the plea which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I hope the House will take the view that this matter is of such importance that we ought not to suspend the Standing Orders now and allow the Bill to proceed to its Third Reading. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that we shall have another opportunity later, in different circumstances and on some other Bill, to discuss this matter again. I suggest to the House that it would be much more convenient, much more expeditious, and would do no very great harm to South Shields if we dealt with the matter finally on this Bill and not on some other Bill.
The Debate tonight has attracted a great deal of conflicting views from different sides of the House. This is obviously a matter upon which opinions will differ, and I hope that the House will take the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) not to agree to the suspension of Standing Orders tonight so as to give us another apportunity of discussing this matter. I will conclude by repeating that no great harm will be done to South Shields if we take that course. A few days' delay will make very little difference to the changes in the structure of the borough which this Bill proposes.

Sir W. Darling: I rise to support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). I do not think this is a matter of very great urgency. To start a Bill of this character at seven o'clock, and then, after discussing it till 9.30, to be asked to pass the Third Reading at ten o'clock, seems to me to be like having two meals in one evening. There should be a period of reflection and reconsideration which will not be available if the device of the suspension of the Standing Order is successfully adopted tonight. I should have thought that as the representative of South Shields, the Home Secretary would have wanted his constituents to contemplate the result of the decision of this House and formulate any new views they might have arising out of that decision.
This rather indecent haste is more suggestive of a criminal than a legislative act—as if one wanted to dispose of the body before any inquiries were instituted. These are far-reaching considerations; they concern the very roots of local government. That is not my view, but the view of experienced and distinguished hon. Members opposite. They know that this is not a matter on which haste is a seemly thing; it is a matter for reflection and deliberation, and I profoundly hope that in these circumstances the suspension of Standing Orders will not be carried.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I support the point of view put by my hon. Friend although I do not know that I would support the simile suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). He suggested that we would have had two meals if this were taken twice this evening, but perhaps a more apt simile would be that we would have had two emetics. There has been a principle accepted in this Bill which it would be entirely wrong for the country to be asked to accept again tonight without there being a great opportunity for further deliberations. I therefore hope that the Standing Order will not be suspended.

Dr. Hill: I join with my hon. Friends in asking the House to resist this Motion for the suspension of Standing Orders. One can sympathise with the Home Secretary that this Bill has been selected as the occasion for beginning this experiment as a side door through which this newer code of compensation can be introduced, but it is a penalty of being selected for a test case that the attention of the House is focused on the principle involved. [Interruption.] I did not hear any of the observations but only the noise which followed them. I think the noise proceeded from the benches opposite, followed by some noise on these benches.

Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to proceed with my observations. I want to stress the importance of the issue involved in this Private Bill. It cannot be said that we are considering in ordinary circumstances a Private Bill which should receive such expedition—

Mr. Speaker: That would be a sound argument on Second Reading but on Third Reading we are confined to what is in the Bill. We cannot discuss matters which might conceivably come into the Bill.

Dr. Hill: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will confine myself to the point whether it is desirable to suspend the Standing Order so as to permit the Third Reading immediately to follow. The substance of my submission is that so important is the issue involved that it would be undesirable to depart from the position as laid down in Standing Orders. Indeed, it is desirable that the normal and proper procedure should be followed in order that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister may more fully reflect upon the exceptional situation which has been created by the addition of this Clause during Second Reading.
The Parliamentary Secretary pinpointed the exceptional importance of the added Clause, and so the need for exceptional and continued consideration of it. He pin-pointed it when he said that there was a prospect of dealing with the point in a general way as part of a comprehensive review of local government before long. I make that point—

It being Ten o'Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business—whereupon The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 112.

Division No. 51.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blenkinsop, A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)


Albu, A. H
Blyton, W. R.
Callaghan, James


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, James


Awbery, S. S.
Booth, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Bottomley, A. G.
Champion, A. J


Baton, Miss A.
Bowden, H. W.
Chetwynd, G. R


Balfour, A.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ctunie, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Brockway, A. Fenner
Cocks, F. S.


Bartley, P.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Benson, G
Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Collick, P.


Beswick, F.
Broughton, Dr. A. D D.
Collindridge, F.


Bing, G. H. C.
Burke, W. A.
Cook, T. F.




Cooper, G. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Pearson, A.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K, (Peckham)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E


Graddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, D. P. T.
Porter, G.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jeger, G. (Goole)
Proctor, W. T.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Daines, P.
Jenkins, R. H.
Rees, Mrs. D.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Darling, G. (Hillsboro')
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Reid, W. (Camlachie)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Richards, R.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Diamond, J.
King, H. M.
Royle, C.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Shackleton, E. A. A,


Donnelly, D.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, F. (Newton)
Shurmer, P L. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lewis, A W J. (West Ham, N.)
Simmons, C J


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fernyhough, E.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Snow, J. W.


Finch, H. J.
McAllister, G
Sorensen, R. W


Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.


Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Sparks, J. A


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, J.
Steele, T.


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mack, J. D
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gilzean, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Gunter, R. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Tomney, F.


Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Messer, F.
Wallace, H W


Hall, Rt. Hn. W. Glenvil (Colne V'll'y)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, W. W
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hannan, W.
Moeran, E. W.
West, D. G.


Hardy, E A
Monslow, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hargreaves, A
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. E, (E. Flint)


Harrison, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Hayman, F. H
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkes, L.


Hewitson, Capt. M
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A


Hobson, C. R
Mulley, F. W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Nally, W
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Huyton)


Hoy, J.
O'Brien, T
Winterbottom, I. (Nottingham, C.)


Hubbard, T.
Orbach, M.
Winterbottom, R. E (Brightstde)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Woods, Rev. G. S


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, T. C.
Yates, V. F


Hynd, J. B. (Attereliffe)
Pargiter, G A



Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. MacColl and Mr. Ewart.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Colegate, 'A.
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Heald, L. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthome)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Crouch, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bell, R. M.
Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Hill, Dr. C. (Luton)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Cundiff, F. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hopkinson, H. L. D'A


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P


Black, C. W.
Donner, P. W.
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bossom, A. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Braine, B.
Drewe, C
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hylton-Foster, H. B.


Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.
Fisher, Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G


Butcher, H. W.
Foster, J. G.
Leather, E. H. C.


Carr, L. R. (Mitcham)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)


Clarke, Col. R. S. (East Grinstead)
Grimond, J.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts, S. W.)







Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Redmayne, M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Touche, G. C.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Turton, R. H.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Robinson, J. Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Vosper, D. F.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir H.
Wakefield, E. B. (Derbyshire, W.)


Marnningham-Buller, R. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Marples, A. E.
Russell, R. S.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Maude, A. E. U. (Ealing, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Molson, A. H. E.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Morris, R Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Snadden, W. McN.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nabarro, G.
Soames, Capt. C.
York, C.


Nicholson, G.
Storey, S.
Young, Sir A. S. L


Oakshott, H. D
Studhoime, H. G.



Orr-Ewing, Charlee Ian (Hendon, N.)
Sutcliffe, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Odey and


Osborne, C.
Teeling, William
Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson.


Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, K. P. (Walton)



Question, "That Standing Order 205 be suspended and the Bill be now read the Third time," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HIGHLAND DEVELOPMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Sparks.]

10.11 p.m.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In discussing the subject of Highland development, I wish to refer essentially to development in what are known as the seven crofter counties, that is to say, Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, Inverness and Argyle. Although the problems existing in these counties are to a certain extent the same in other parts of Scotland, the point I wish to mention applies especially to this part of the world; and it is generally accepted that the Highlands which comprise these counties require special consideration.
We were very glad indeed when the Lord President came to Inverness recently. We were especially glad to hear him say that he recognised that the Highlands required special consideration. Not only do they need special consideration, but I would emphasise that if they are given this consideration they can produce very special results which are of immense importance to the country. They could achieve a tremendous increase in food, stand on their own feet and eventually achieve prosperity, provided the right steps are taken. I suggest that we want a long-term plan for the Highlands in order to put them on a sound economic

basis. The important immediate matter is to provide the basic facilities which concern mainly the overcoming of the difficulties of transport and communication, the provision of better roads, adequate living conditions, and especially water supplies and housing.
In regard to communications, the main difficulty today is transport. The recent increases in freight charges and the Petrol Duty have hit the Highlands especially hard. Even before the charges were increased, our case was that they should be reduced and not increased. Before the charges were put on, the cost of sending a ton of potatoes from Inverness to Stornaway was £4 10s. l1d., nearly half the total price of that ton. A firm in Stornaway has pointed out that in order to get its potatoes it is forced to buy them from Ireland where transport costs only £1 19s. 3d. The high transport charges are killing Highland development, and I am very glad that there is a Committee sitting on this matter now. I hope we shall get satisfactory results from it, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will seriously represent the case for the Highlands when the time comes.
In order to give the Highlands a sound economy, we have to develop all these natural resources of the land and sea. This includes agriculture and forestry and What help we can get from the hydroelectric scheme to provide power for industries for the Highlands. There are, however, difficulties, and I appreciate that any Government which might be in power would have to deal with difficulties of this kind. There is a feeling among the agricultural community that the Forestry Commission can get anything they like. I hear that the Agricultural Advisory Committee admit that they are powerless to do anything to prevent agricultural


interests from being threatened by encroachment from the Forestry Commission and other departments and boards, even to the extent of watching agricultural interests, or bringing to the notice of St. Andrew's House the fact that the Commission are carrying out detailed surveys on land. This causes great uneasiness in the agricultural world which does not make for good long-term planning. That is the problem which the Secretary of State has on his plate. I hope that some kind of satisfactory answer will be given.
I have already written to the right hon. Gentleman about one or two cases of conflict between the Forestry Commission and agricultural interests. The Forestry Commission are a big, solid, Government body and the agricultural interests are more individualistic. They feel that they have not got quite so much weight behind them as the Commission. Naturally, they think that their position is not always adequately considered. I should like to know what the Government think about this matter.
I appreciate that there are difficulties about the Hydro-Electric Board. We want hydro-electricity which I have heard described as "God's gift to man." This is one of the most important developments in the Highlands. This power which we can get from water is of absolutely vital importance to Highland development; but at present there are difficulties about what are termed "uneconomic extensions." I have here a letter from Sir Edward MacColl, of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, who explains the difficulty in supplying certain people who want this power.
For example, he describes one difficulty of a large landowner who wants the power for agricultural purposes. That man complains that the Board want him to take too much power. At the same time, Sir Edward encloses a letter from a local crofter community who complain of the intention to supply these rich landowners with power and say that it is neglecting the interests of the small farmer, the crofter and schoolchildren. We want to ensure that everybody gets the benefit of a hydro-electricity supply. That is an immediate problem for the Government. How are they to supply hydro-electricity in whatever quantities are required at rates which the people can pay?
I want to speak about making the best use of the land. We must develop marginal land. The secret of the expansion of farming in Scotland is to discover winter feed for an increased number of cattle and sheep. That means making the best use of marginal land. I should like to see an active policy to make it worth while for people to cultivate that land. I should like to know what has happened to the Spey Valley drainage scheme. This scheme to divert water from the Spey could bring something like 9,000 to 10,000 acres of good agricultural land into use. Though it may be an expensive operation, we cannot neglect anything of that nature which will produce arable land.
Finally I come to the question of tourism. Here is an immense opportunity. We have now had the report from Mr. Thomas Johnston saying that we earned' £7 million from England and Wales and £4,400,000 from foreigners last year, including 1,500,000 dollars. Of course, the dollar income is vitally important. I suggest that we could increase this if we made the restrictions applying to dollar visitors rather less irksome. There are a tremendous number of restrictions. Dollar visitors have to have coupons in order to buy export goods in shops. They have to show that they are dollar visitors. In certain shops they have to buy a minimum of £10 before the goods they purchase can be delivered to the ship. We must make it as easy as possible for visitors from America and Canada to buy what goods they like when they come to this country. The production simply of evidence that they are visitors from that part of the world should be sufficient to enable them to buy anything they want.
I maintain that we should take a leaf out of the Swiss book regarding the tourist industry. We have in the Highlands of Scotland the finest scenery in the world, and we should make good use of it. The Swiss are an industrial nation, they are industrial and agricultural combined; but they have made a considerable income out of tourism. They do not depend upon it alone. If tourism were taken away, they could still survive. That is why we have to get our economy sound before we can expect any really large increase in tourism.
The development which I have sketched will mean an immense expense; it will mean considerable time and effort.


The question which arises is how we are to pay for this. We have an enormous number of Scotsmen living abroad. I am convinced that private enterprise would be interested to subscribe really large sums in a big Highland development scheme if it was properly thought out.
The Government, of course, have certain obligations, which are, first and foremost, the provision of basic facilities. In this connection I make just one point; I do not make it exactly as a suggestion, but put it as a fact. Over a good many years millions of pounds every year have gone into the Treasury by way of duty on whisky. Whisky is a commodity of very great wealth and is our best dollar earner. It can be produced only in the Highlands, and cannot be imitated adequately in any other part of the world. All I want to do is to submit that a part of the world that can produce so much wealth should at least be no worse off in basic facilities than the rest of the world.
There is another very important reason why we must preserve the Highlands and develop them to the full; that is, their men. The Highlands have been the nursery of the best men and women in the world. They have gone throughout the world, and the world has benefited as a result. We still have excellent men and women in the Highlands provided that adequate basic facilities are made available to them. Furthermore, the Highlanders would do a tremendous lot for themselves towards the development which we desire. I should like finally to say that a very famous Socialist, Jean Jaurés, once said that
Nations are treasure houses of humanity.
I submit that the Highlands are the treasure house of the British nation.

10.23 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I am sure that the House is indebted to my noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) for raising this important subject. In his opening remarks he said that his speech concerned particularly the seven crofting counties from Argyll to Shetland, which comprised more than one half of Scotland. I am bound to observe that it is a sad commentary on our democratic procedure in this House that a Private Member has to raise a subject of this magnitude in a Debate which is

limited by procedure to half an hour. I appeal to the Ministers who are now on the Government Front Bench to ensure that when the Government publish the report on the Highlands, which I understand, will be on Friday, that at least one day of Government time should be devoted to the consideration of the Highlands.

Mr. Mathers: It is only fair to say that the Scottish Grand Committee spent two and a half hours on this subject this morning.

Sir D. Robertson: I fully appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but two and a half hours in a Committee of Scottish Members would not satisfy me, because the Highlands—

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): If the hon. Member wishes that, he can persuade his Leader to give up a Supply day for a full discussion in the House on the subject.

Sir D. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is attempting to teach me how to suck eggs. I am asking for Government time to discuss a Government report.
My object is to bring to the notice of the House the importance of one-half of Scotland. When one recalls the Debates which took place in the House during bygone generations, and right up to the outbreak of the last war, and all the Royal Commissions and committees which for so long have been inquiring into the Highlands, it seems that the situation has now entirely changed from the 19th century days of unrestricted free trade when there was no possibility of any Royal Commission or Government doing anything for the Highlands. Agriculture must always remain the principal occupation there and as even the farmer on good rich low ground in the South had a struggle to make ends meet there was no chance for the Highland farmer, with poorer ground and high transport costs.
This is the hour of Britain's opportunity to help the Highlands to become the great food producing area which it could become. Once it was a great cattle country and it can become so again, particularly if the proposals of my noble Friend the Member for Inverness are carried out and we begin to reclaim land and grow the winter feed which is so essential for cattle, sheep and poultry.


There is nothing more pitiful than to attend the sales at Lairg, in my constituency, and see the crofters coming in with large numbers of stock which they are unable to feed in the winter and the grazier from the South—the fellow in possession of the rich land—picking out bargains from weak sellers, the men who are unable to hold stock. Weak sellers are at the mercy of buyers. There is a tremendous challenge to the Government and succeeding Governments to set about using the Highlands.
Time does not permit me to enumerate many things which I should have liked to do. I earnestly appeal to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—I am sure that they have as much affection and devotion for the country as I have—to give us a day or two in which to discuss this vital matter in the House.

10.28 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I find it difficult to comprehend the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), as will his constituents who take the trouble to read today's HANSARD. He began by saying that it was a great pity that it was left to his noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) to initiate a Debate in the circumscribed period of half-an-hour on the Adjournment, and went on to argue that it was up to the Government, after—not before—they had published the Report which will be issued on Friday, to provide the time.
Only this morning, in the Scottish Grand Committee, hon. Members on this side of the House regretted that it was necessary to spend our two-and-a-half hours in that Committee discussing the problems of the Highlands two days before the publication of the report, but it was not possible for them so to arrange the business in the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss the Highlands and Islands after the publication of the report.
There is another day yet which the Opposition are to use in the House to discuss matters of Supply in Scotland. On that day I understand that the Opposition are to discuss education. It would have been possible for the Opposition to have selected the subject of Highland development or problems of the Highlands on that occasion. But the problem of

the Highlands will not be solved by having one, two or three days' Debates in this House. I have read HANSARD for the past few years. There has been no scarcity of words spoken in this House on the problems of the Highlands and Islands, but there was a shocking lack of action in the past to deal with these problems.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said that in those days of free enterprise it was difficult for a commission to do anything. Commission after commission recommended that steps should be taken. The report of Thomas Telford in 1882 used exactly the same arguments as the noble Lord, the Member for Inverness used in this Debate tonight. The noble Lord will find in that report an assessment of the problems of the Highlands and Islands and the statement that if some measures were taken, including the construction of the Caledonian Canal, incidentally, to provide adequate communications, the Highlands and Islands would be able to stand on their own feet. That has been said over and over again.
The noble Lord said that the people of the Highlands are the best people in the country. Well, I am a Highlander, and the noble Lord is not. I happen to represent a part of the country which bears the name of his family. Indeed, it has its name from his family. But I am not willing to concede that the Frasers in Lanarkshire are any less good people than the Frasers in Inverness. Not at all. But I am glad to say that in these last few years we have found a Government which is at last taking steps to deal with the problem of the Highlands and Islands, and also to deal with the problems of Lanarkshire.
One must expect a lot of people in Hamilton today to feel bitter about those who were responsible for their well-being in the past, about the landowners who made fortunes out of mineral royalties; who feel that it ought not to be that the taxpayer is charged with the responsibility of finding the cash for clearing away these derelict pit heaps.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: I do not think that this has much to do with the development of the Highlands.

Mr. Fraser: What I am saying is in order in an Adjournment Debate.
We have not only the problem of the Highlands and Islands to deal with, but


problems in many other parts of the country arising out of the same kind of neglect as these problems in the Highlands and Islands arise from. We have found it necessary in the last few years to ask the taxpayer for money to clear away derelict buildings around the closed pit tops, to clear away the bings and to build factories to provide employment for the people who used to earn a meagre living digging the coal out of the earth, so earning large profits for landowners who were not, of course, inconvenienced or embarrassed, or in any way put out by these blots on the amenities of Hamilton.
But let us get back to some of the points which the noble Lord has raised. He said that all this business of having detailed surveys of the land which it was proposed to use for afforestation was resented by agriculturists.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: No. Please do not misunderstand me. I said that these detailed surveys led to the fear among agriculturists that this land was inevitably to be taken.

Mr. Fraser: That seems to me to be strange reasoning. I should have thought that if the Forestry Commission, with the support of the Secretary of State, had merely acquired many thousands of acres of land and had proceeded to plan without consultation or examination of what would be the best use to put the land to there would have been cause for complaint. But what is happening? We are making very detailed surveys in the Highlands to decide which areas should have trees, for example, for timber, and those which should be left for food production in the shape of beef and mutton. That is a very proper thing to do and we have reason to believe that those people who really have the interests of the Highlands at heart agree with us; they are assisting us in carrying through these detailed surveys.
But the noble Lord went on to say, with the support of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, that we want to have some land drained and pastures made to provide winter keep for Highland cattle. Let me repeat what was once said by another member of His Majesty's Government—and there has been much romantic nonsense about putting cattle on the deer forests of Scotland—and who was attacked the other morning in the

Scottish Grand Committee. The noble Lord, and his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, no doubt subscribed to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) who the other morning said:
I am doing it myself, that is, maintaining large herds of beef-producing cattle all the year round in the Scottish hills. It is possible, as Lord Lovat has shown, to put large numbers of cattle in deer forests. He is doing it in the North-west.
Then, in almost the same breath, in the next sentence or two, he says:
It is time this hill cattle scheme was revised. Opinion is pretty general in Scotland now that it is far too rigid as it stands. It excludes many hill farms where shelter and keep cannot be provided. To get assistance under it the grazing qualifying period is seven months. That should be cut down to five months because it is quite impossible in certain areas to maintain a herd for that period on Scottish hills, because of lack of water and shortage of winter keep."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 22nd June, 1950; c. 13–14.]
That is the substance of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) had said, and it has been misrepresented a hundred times. It seems to be all right when said by the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, but not when my right hon. Friend says it.

Sir D. Robertson: I know the Minister has only one minute left, but it does seem to me that he is possibly misleading the House. No one—and I have been in most of these Debates—has found any fault with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. He made a remark which he at once admitted was something which is now romantic nonsense, but the matter was not regarded seriously.

Mr. Fraser: No Government has ever done as much to encourage the keeping of cattle on the hills in Scotland and particularly in the Highlands. Of many schemes in which financial assistance is given—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.